In the past two days, the news event of "six pieces of sugar 466 yuan" continued to ferment. According to media reports, a consumer bought milk pie at a candy store in a scenic spot in Chongqing. The total price of six pieces of sugar reached 466 yuan. With regard to the question of "sky-priced sugar", the shopkeeper argued that the high cost was caused by the good materials of the products and the high rent of the stores in the scenic spot. In particular, he stressed that he clearly marked the price, "if the customer has any objection to the price, it doesn't matter if he wants less". There were "38 yuan prawns", "1500 yuan for four dishes", "980 yuan for pineapple", "128 yuan for orange", and "466 yuan for six pieces of sugar", which made many netizens exclaim that "price assassin" is coming again. The explanation of the high price of raw materials in the store and the high rent in the scenic spot, although it is quite "routine" and cannot completely convince the public - after all, the value of "80 yuan a piece of sugar" is still in doubt, but what really angers netizens and stimulates public opinion is the statement of the store's "clearly marked price". Although it is not explicitly stated, "swing the pot" means strong. According to the store's logic, clearly marked price is its own amulet. It seems that as long as the price is clearly marked, if there are still consumers to buy, then it is "willing to take the bait", and there is nothing to blame. If consumers feel that the price is too high, they will not buy it. Indeed, for general commodities, operators can set prices independently. In relevant laws and regulations such as the Price Law, operators are required to clearly mark the price and shall not sell the goods at an additional price. In contrast, the shopkeeper seems to have no suspicion of violating the law. Even if the price is clearly marked, he seems to have nothing to do with it. Clearly marked prices in the literal sense are of course important. Price is one of the important information in consumers' purchase decisions. When each commodity has a publicly marked price, it can be said to protect the right of consumers to know, and the comparison of advantages and disadvantages can also be based on operation, and it can also be said to be fair and honest transactions. Of course, this is also an important means to reduce price fraud. However, the default premise here is that the publicly marked commodity price is reasonable and can be used as a benchmark for value comparison. If the prices of goods or services are sky-high, or the performance-price ratio is obviously unreasonable, and the final transaction price needs to be re-gamed in private, then the price with a bid is about equal to the price without a bid. If a consumer intends to buy, or buys at the marked price, or bargains, whether the fact is the former or the latter, it is the consumer's interests that are damaged. Because the buyers and sellers have asymmetric information about goods or services, consumers can't escape the fraud trap. Paradoxically, this so-called "clearly marked price" gives operators the confidence to "operate in accordance with the law" and the confidence to avoid responsibility. So far, the "clearly marked price" in the institutional sense has been utilized. The price tag, which was originally intended to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, has repeatedly become a shield for shopkeepers (suspected) of fraud, which also makes many consumers feel strongly uncomfortable. Among the top ten public opinion hotspots of consumer rights protection in 2022 released by the China Consumer Association, the topic of "price assassin" violates the principle of clearly marked price integrity "ranks first in social influence. Therefore, it is more important than the clear price, or the clear price. However, it is also difficult to determine how much the real price should be and how much the price is commensurate with the value of the goods or services