3C认证暂停、快递拒收：罗马仕问题充电宝召回陷入“死循环”

Core Viewpoint - The recall of Romoss power banks has escalated into a logistics crisis, revealing significant safety management issues and a potential loss of consumer trust in the brand [1][6][9] Recall Origin: Safety Concerns and University Bans - The recall was triggered by safety concerns raised by 21 universities, which reported that the Romoss 20000mAh power bank had a self-ignition probability exceeding the industry average by 300% [2] - Following public outcry, Romoss issued an apology but claimed it had not received official risk notifications from the Beijing Education Commission [2] Logistics Stalemate: Courier Companies Refusal - Starting June 23, major courier companies, including SF Express, refused to accept Romoss power banks for return, citing frequent battery-related incidents as the reason for the ban [3][5] - This refusal has led to a halt in the recall process, with consumers expressing frustration over the lack of clear solutions from Romoss [5] Brand Trust Crisis: From "National Power Bank" to Safety Concerns - The recall involves 491,745 units, marking a record in the consumer electronics industry for product recalls, highlighting long-term safety management failures within the brand [6] - Romoss's low-cost strategy, which relied on B-grade battery cells, has compromised safety, leading to numerous complaints about product quality [6][7] Regulatory Intervention: Ensuring Consumer Rights - The Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration has intervened to facilitate the recall process, but as of June 24, no clear solutions have been provided by Romoss [8] - Legal experts emphasize that producers must cover transportation costs for recalled products and ensure a smooth recall process, indicating potential legal obligations for Romoss [8] Industry Implications: Safety Standards and Consumer Awareness - The incident underscores the contradictions between low-cost competition and safety standards in the consumer electronics sector, with calls for stricter safety regulations and better oversight of manufacturers [8][9] - The situation reflects a broader industry issue where some brands compromise on safety to reduce costs, leading to inconsistent product quality [8][9]