Consumers can only get a refund if they give a reason without providing proof. "Recently, Mr. Liu, a merchant on a certain platform, reported that in May of this year, his newly opened store encountered multiple orders with only refunds. In this situation, the merchant not only has to bear the shipping cost, but also has to compensate for the goods, "Mr. Liu said helplessly. In recent days, topics related to refunds only, such as "1400 yuan washing machine being refunded only due to inability to install" and "11 yuan clothing being refunded only for online shopping being ordered to pay 800 yuan", have frequently appeared on hot searches, arousing people's attention to the refund only model. Some merchants have expressed that some people abuse the rule of only refunding for "zero yuan purchases", which is established to protect consumer rights, resulting in a "lose lose" situation for both buyers and sellers. How to prevent only refunds from being ruined and achieve the original intention of "win-win" is a problem that e-commerce platforms need to further solve. The game between "wool harvesting" and anti wool harvesting ":" The group of malicious applicants for only refunds is becoming increasingly widespread, causing great trouble to the vast number of merchants. "In a recent judgment published on the Judgment Document Network, a merchant who was only refunded wrote in the reasons for the lawsuit. Since refund only became a standard feature on e-commerce platforms, various versions of buyer's "shearing wool" tutorials and merchant's rights protection and litigation tutorials have been circulating on social media platforms. Both buyers and sellers are engaged in fierce games, and related disputes and lawsuits continue to arise. On October 1, 2023, Mr. Su from Beijing spent 49.9 yuan to purchase a black hoodie online. After receiving the item, he applied for a refund only due to quality reasons. The merchant requested Mr. Su to provide photo evidence and stated that he has not worn or washed the item before applying for a return and refund. But Mr. Su ignored it and instead applied for a refund through the platform, ultimately receiving a refund of 24 yuan. Due to dissatisfaction with Mr. Su's behavior, the merchant filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that they had delivered the goods as agreed and that Mr. Su had an obligation to pay the purchase price in a timely manner. In June of this year, the court ruled that Mr. Su should return the payment of 24 yuan to the merchant. In some judgments, consumers maliciously only refund, not only requiring the return of goods or payment, but also being ordered to pay for the costs incurred by the merchant's rights protection. In May of this year, Ms. Yuan was required by the court to refund 25 yuan of the purchase price and pay 1000 yuan in legal fees incurred by the merchant for rights protection due to mandatory refund and refusal to return the goods. Lawyer Liao Jianxun from Guangzhou Guoding Law Firm stated that if consumers do not receive the goods due to reasons other than their own, or if the merchant has not shipped the goods, or if the goods have serious quality problems and the merchant is unwilling to return and refund, they can choose to refund only. If not, based on the principle of good faith, consumers should return the goods when applying for a refund. If consumers maliciously choose to only refund, violating the principle of fairness, merchants can demand the return of goods or compensation for losses. In 2021, the only refund rule of "refund without return" was first introduced on e-commerce platforms, which was originally a "win-win" move but was abused. Subsequently, in order to enhance the shopping experience of consumers and better protect their legitimate rights and interests, multiple platforms announced their support for a refund only mechanism. Since the beginning of this year, refund only has become a standard feature on e-commerce platforms. Industry insiders generally believe that refunds alone are a measure taken by e-commerce platforms to improve after-sales efficiency, enhance service quality and consumer satisfaction, and help force merchants to improve product quality, which can be described as a "win-win" move. However, during the operation of the refund rule, it also provides opportunities for some malicious consumers to seek improper benefits. When encountering malicious refunds, merchants will face unjustified economic losses, which disrupt the normal operation of consumption rules and are not conducive to the construction of the social credit system. So, why is refund only being abused? Xue Jun, director of the E-commerce Law Research Center at Peking University, analyzed that apart from a few dishonest behaviors of consumers, some platforms, in order to retain users and save costs, simply handle consumer complaints and deduct payments directly from merchants. However, due to the complex, time-consuming, and low profit process of safeguarding rights, merchants often choose to give up their rights, which will to some extent promote the abuse of refund only. To maintain a good e-commerce ecosystem, it is necessary to treat merchants and users equally and fairly, which is a basic requirement of the E-commerce Law Xue Jun believes that platforms should not encourage widespread refunds only. If the platform blindly stands from the user's perspective and does not consider the legitimate rights and interests of the merchants who have joined, in the long run, the merchants who have been 'ripped off' may adopt the method of cutting corners in order to survive, leading to problems such as bad money driving out good money, "said Xue Jun. The platform should bear governance responsibility. It is understood that in order to provide users with a good consumer experience, when there is a dispute between consumers and merchants, the platform generally satisfies consumers' refund only demands. At the same time, the platform will also stipulate in the dispute resolution clause that if the system makes a refund decision and the seller needs to recover the goods, the platform may not accept the dispute and the buyer and seller can seek legal solutions on their own. In response, multiple experts have stated that refunds alone have raised higher requirements for the platform's review, screening, and identification. The platform should play a greater role in better balancing the interests of both buyers and sellers. Professor Liu Junhai from the Law School of Renmin University of China stated that protecting consumers' right to refunds in accordance with the law is conducive to forcing businesses to improve their services, further respecting and protecting consumers' rights to information, choice, and fair trade, and boosting consumer confidence. But he also emphasized that the platform should strengthen monitoring of consumers' behavior patterns and frequency of only refunding through technologies such as big data, to prevent the abuse of rules. Xue Jun suggests that the platform should strictly and clearly limit the scope of application of the refund only rule, and assist merchants in resolving disputes rather than rashly requesting refunds. The relevant departments should also provide clear guidance on this issue from a policy perspective. The Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Rights Protection Committee believes that platforms should take on governance responsibilities. On the one hand, they can allow merchants to confirm in advance whether to activate the refund only mode when listing products and handling after-sales services; On the other hand, a mechanism for handling merchant appeals should be established to fully absorb the opinions of both merchants and consumers, and balance the interests of both parties. In addition, when using technological means to determine whether to use the refund only mode, the platform should also comprehensively consider the credit of both merchants and consumers to avoid accidental harm. The Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Protection Commission calls on consumers to make reasonable use of the refund only rule, consume with integrity, and jointly promote the progress of online consumer after-sales rules, achieving a win-win situation for consumers, merchants, and platforms. (New Society)