买的是足金挂坠，送检之后发现是"合金"？ 近日，广东清远的李女士反映，她新购买的周生生足金福袋挂坠佩戴一天后即被刮花，并出现白色痕迹。李女士 将挂坠送检，结果发现不同点位的金含量数据存在差异：其中一个点位金含量为96.21%，另一个点位为83.35%， 最低的一个点位仅为64.37%。挂坠中含有铁、银、钯等多种其他金属元素。 周生生官方微博发布情况说明 此事引发舆论关注之后，自称是周生生方面的工作人员回复记者称："考虑到春节临近，出于对客户最大的诚意， 我司愿意为其提供退货服务。" 针对此事，2月3日，周生生官方微博发布情况说明，表示高度重视顾客反映的相 关事宜，正积极开展相关工作，相关进展将及时同步。舆论压力之下，姗姗来迟的售后服务不足以让人看到诚 意。 此事虽因退货而起，但目前的舆论风波绝非退货所能平息——涉事挂坠为什么会出现这样的情况？到底有没有质 量问题？还有没有类似的问题？ 事关消费者权益和品牌形象，所有这些都需要一个明确的答案。 根据国家标准GB11887-2012《首饰贵金属纯度的规定及命名方法》，Au990（俗称足金）金含量不低于990‰ 。 从检测结果来看，该挂坠多处检测点位金含量低于国家标 ...

近日，有网友发文表示：自己在青岛的苹果授权店原价购买iPhone Air后，第二天该手机就降价2000元。 | 〈全国12315平台 | ··· ( | HHIH | | --- | --- | --- | | 商品/服务名称 | iphone air | | | 订单号 | MAG | | | 争议发生时间 | 2026-01-26 | | | 消费金额 7999元 | | | | 市场调节价问题 | 投诉问题类型 | | | 是否同意公示对 | 是 | 该企业的投诉 | | 本人于2025年11月2日通过Apple St | 投诉内容 | ore以7999元购入iPhone Air 256G | | 版本。2026年1月25日该机型官方 | 直降2000元叠加国补500元后售价 | | | 仅5499元,较本人购买价下跌2500 | 元,跌幅达31.25%。 | | | 根据《中华人民共和国消费者权益 | 保护法》第十条规定,消费者享有 | | | 公平交易的权利。苹果公司作为全 | 球市值最高的科技企业,其定价策 | | | 略严重违背商业伦理: | 1. 产品生命周期异常:上市仅三个 | | | 月即 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the negative perception of Shandong province, highlighting its agricultural strength and industrial capabilities while criticizing the regional bias against it [1][8]. Group 1: Economic and Demographic Significance - Shandong has a permanent population of 101 million, making it the second-largest province in China, and not supplying goods to Shandong is akin to ignoring a significant market [3]. - The province ranks third in grain production and first in vegetable production nationally, emphasizing its role as a crucial supplier for food security [5]. Group 2: Industrial and Technological Capabilities - Shandong is the only province in China with all 41 industrial categories, indicating its comprehensive manufacturing capabilities [7]. - The province's private enterprises rank among the top in the nation, showcasing its industrial strength and technological advancements [7]. Group 3: Cultural and Social Perceptions - There is a stereotype that Shandong lacks modernity and is overly traditional, yet this overlooks the province's practical and hardworking nature [7]. - The article argues that the negative stereotypes about Shandong are often perpetuated by those who benefit from such biases, leading to a misunderstanding of the province's true value [8][9]. Group 4: Market Implications - Ignoring Shandong's market potential due to regional bias is seen as a significant business mistake, given its strong consumer base and economic contribution [8]. - The article calls for respect towards Shandong, emphasizing its foundational role in China's industrial and agricultural sectors [9].

12月6日，杭州野生动物世界在进行黑熊表演时，发生了黑熊将驯养员扑倒争抢食物的事件。该事件最后以全部停 止黑熊表演，将涉事驯养员停职并转其他岗位而告终。 近几年来，关于主题公园动物表演的话题屡屡受到关注，2025年8月，有自称郑州海昌海洋公园的前兽医发文：公 园长期给海豚打镇静药、给海豹用过期药，甚至北极狼疑似治疗不当死亡。直到现在，这起事件都没有后续调查 定论。 除了动物表演，主题公园的服务也遭到游客质疑。今年9月，上海海昌海洋公园的"翻包禁食"风波闹得沸沸扬扬。 游客入园时被工作人员徒手翻包，所有零食都被没收。这不禁让人想起几年前的上海迪士尼，同样的问题，但迪 士尼最终允许游客携带食品入园，并增设X光安检机减少手工翻包检查。 当年这个案例已经说明，无论翻包检查还是禁止自带食品，对游客而言都具有一定冒犯性。上海海昌海洋公园给 出的理由是，"为了保护动物"。 | lk 43 | 鼻位名称 | 终一社会倡用代码 (或者住质身) | 核定 代表 人服 负责 人 | 机位地址 | 其要违法事实 | 还用情况。 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | 烤品( ...

Core Viewpoint - The shift in recharge policies by popular payment platforms like WeChat, Alipay, and Taobao, which have eliminated small recharge options (10 yuan, 20 yuan), now requiring a minimum of 50 yuan or even 100 yuan, has raised public concerns about consumer rights being compromised [1][2]. Group 1: Changes in Recharge Options - Major third-party platforms have removed small denomination recharge options, standardizing the minimum recharge amount to 50 yuan, while platforms like JD and Douyin have set the minimum at 100 yuan [2]. - In contrast, the three major telecom operators still allow users to customize their recharge amounts, with options as low as 0.01 yuan to 1 yuan available on their official apps [4]. Group 2: Technical and Cost Considerations - The absence of small recharge options on third-party platforms is not due to technical limitations, as evidenced by the flexibility offered by telecom operators [5]. - Industry experts suggest that the decision to eliminate small recharge options is driven by operational costs, as transaction fees and maintenance costs for small transactions are not covered by the commission earned [6]. Group 3: Impact on Consumers - The increased recharge minimum significantly affects low-consumption users, such as the elderly and students, who typically require only small amounts for their phone usage [7]. - Users with backup phone numbers often rely on small recharges to maintain their accounts, and the higher minimums increase their costs [8]. Group 4: Regulatory and Strategic Recommendations - To address these issues, regulatory bodies should establish clear guidelines to protect "recharge freedom," ensuring that platforms retain options for small and customizable recharge amounts [10]. - Companies are encouraged to focus on user convenience rather than imposing higher barriers, as true customer loyalty is built through accessible services rather than forced compliance [10].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving Liu Jialing accusing Taobao of consumer deception has gained significant attention on social media, highlighting potential issues of brand representation and consumer trust in e-commerce platforms [2][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On November 10, Liu Jialing posted screenshots on social media, calling out Taobao and Tmall for serious infringement and consumer deception related to a product sold by "ENCARE Overseas Flagship Store" [2]. - The product in question, "New Zealand ENCARE Ear Cow Immunoglobulin," featured a promotional image of actor Tony Leung, but the product details did not clarify his endorsement [2][3]. - Following Liu's post, the promotional image was removed from the store's homepage by 3 PM on the same day, indicating a swift response to the allegations [3]. Group 2: Company Response - A customer service representative from the store claimed that they had sponsorship rights related to a program featuring Tony Leung and were in communication with the program's team to resolve any misunderstandings [3]. - By 5 PM, the store was no longer searchable on Taobao, and the customer service indicated that the matter had been escalated to the brand for further handling [3]. - Taobao's consumer service stated that consumers could report suspected infringement cases directly through the platform for verification and action [3].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a store using candy as change has sparked significant public discussion, highlighting a breach of consumer rights and market transaction norms [1][2][3] Group 1: Consumer Rights and Business Practices - The company stated that it does not support the practice of using candy as change, but some stores may ask customers for consent in cases of insufficient change [1] - According to consumer protection laws, consumers have the right to fair trading conditions, including quality assurance and correct pricing, and can refuse forced transactions [1][2] - The practice of using candy instead of cash violates consumer rights, including the right to be informed and the right to choose, and can be seen as a form of forced trading [3] Group 2: Market Transaction Norms - In standard market practices, businesses typically offer discounts or promotions to attract consumers, but charging extra or using alternative forms of payment without consent is unacceptable [2] - The act of substituting candy for cash change is viewed as a serious violation of market transaction rules, as consumers did not purchase the candy and should not be required to pay for it [2][3] - The accumulation of such practices can lead to significant profits for businesses while undermining consumer rights, indicating a lack of respect for consumers [3]

Core Points - The incident involving Zhao Yiming's snack store using candy as change has sparked significant public discussion, highlighting a deviation from standard business practices [2][3] - The company's official response clarified that while they do not support this practice, some stores may ask customers for consent to use candy as change if they lack sufficient coins [2][4] - The practice of using candy instead of cash violates consumer rights, including the right to informed consent and choice, and can be seen as a form of forced transaction [4][5] Summary by Sections Company Practices - Zhao Yiming's snack store has been criticized for using candy as change, which is not officially supported by the company [2] - The practice is perceived as an attempt to avoid losing small amounts of cash, which contradicts typical business strategies that focus on customer attraction and retention [3] Consumer Rights - According to consumer protection laws, customers have the right to fair trading conditions, including accurate pricing and the ability to refuse unwanted products [2][3] - The use of candy as change without explicit consent from customers infringes on their rights and can be classified as a deceptive practice [4] Market Implications - The incident raises concerns about the respect for market transaction rules and consumer rights, suggesting that such practices could lead to broader issues of consumer trust and business integrity [3][4] - The accumulation of such practices could result in significant financial gains for the business at the expense of consumer rights, highlighting the need for stricter adherence to ethical business conduct [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights concerns regarding telecom operators targeting elderly consumers with confusing mobile plans, leading to unintended subscriptions and difficulties in cancellation [1] Group 1: Consumer Behavior - Elderly individuals are reportedly subscribing to mobile plans they do not understand, often without their consent or knowledge [1] - Family members express frustration as they confirm with the elderly that no such subscriptions were made, yet telecom customer service insists that the subscriptions were authorized by the account holder [1] Group 2: Telecom Operators - The article mentions major telecom operators such as China Unicom, China Mobile, and China Telecom in the context of these practices [1] - There is an implication that these operators may be exploiting the lack of digital literacy among older consumers to increase their subscription numbers [1]

Group 1 - The company emphasizes the importance of shareholder returns and consumer rights [1] - Continuous product innovation and quality improvement are key strategies to meet market demand [1]