Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the rampant issue of unqualified "nutritionists" promoting health products, often providing misleading advice and exaggerating the benefits of these products, which raises concerns about consumer safety and the need for clearer boundaries between nutritional guidance and commercial marketing [2][3][10]. Group 1: Misleading Practices - Many so-called "nutritionists" are not professionally qualified and use their titles to sell health products, often making unsubstantiated claims about their efficacy [3][9]. - Consumers report experiences where "nutritionists" recommend excessive dosages of vitamins, far exceeding the suggested amounts on product packaging [2][5]. - The marketing tactics employed by these individuals often involve creating a professional image to gain consumer trust, despite lacking proper credentials [7][9]. Group 2: Regulatory Challenges - The current market lacks clear definitions and regulations regarding the term "nutritionist," leading to widespread misuse of the title by unqualified sales personnel [9][19]. - Regulatory bodies have initiated actions to clean up the health product market, but challenges remain in enforcing compliance and addressing misleading advertising practices [19][20]. - The article notes that a significant percentage of investigated cases involve exaggerated or false claims about health products, indicating a systemic issue within the industry [20]. Group 3: Consumer Awareness and Protection - Consumers are encouraged to seek professional advice from registered nutritionists or healthcare providers rather than relying on unverified online sources [14][19]. - The article emphasizes the importance of retaining evidence of transactions and communications when dealing with health products to facilitate potential claims or complaints [15][18]. - Regulatory authorities recommend that consumers follow specific guidelines when purchasing health products, including verifying product labels and avoiding impulsive purchases based on misleading claims [22][23].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights consumer dissatisfaction with Alibaba's Tmall Supermarket, particularly regarding counterfeit products and inadequate customer service responses, leading to a call for accountability and better consumer protection [1][4][7]. Group 1: Consumer Experience - A long-term consumer of "Xinshi Tang" Yuling Gao purchased counterfeit products from Tmall Supermarket, which deviated significantly from the expected quality and characteristics [3]. - The consumer experienced physical discomfort after consuming the counterfeit product and faced unhelpful responses from customer service, which insisted the product was compliant [3][4]. - The article mentions multiple instances of other consumers facing similar issues with counterfeit products and poor customer service, indicating a systemic problem within the platform [4]. Group 2: Customer Service Issues - Public data reveals that as of May 28, 2025, Tmall's complaint response rate was only 5.53%, and the completion rate was 5.41%, ranking at the bottom among major e-commerce platforms [4]. - The article criticizes the customer service team's dismissive responses, which include phrases like "the product is fine" and "the inspection report is compliant," reflecting a lack of genuine support for consumers [4][5]. Group 3: Call for Accountability - The consumer has initiated formal complaints through platforms like 12315 and Black Cat Complaints, indicating a willingness to pursue legal action if necessary [5]. - The article emphasizes the need for Alibaba to uphold its commitments to consumer protection, particularly regarding the "genuine product guarantee" promised to VIP members [7]. - The author urges Alibaba's leadership to recognize the importance of consumer trust and social responsibility over mere financial metrics [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misleading use of trademarks by companies, which often leads to consumer confusion and potential exploitation of their purchasing decisions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Companies are using trademarks that create confusion, such as "一品牛肉干" which is actually a pork product, misleading consumers into thinking they are purchasing beef [1]. - Examples include "小尾花黑猪肝" which misleads consumers into believing they are buying a premium product when it is just regular pork liver [2]. - The use of descriptive terms in trademarks, like "六个核桃" or "手打"挂面, does not guarantee the product's quality or characteristics, leading to consumer misconceptions [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Issues - The article highlights that many misleading trademarks have passed regulatory scrutiny, indicating potential flaws in the trademark examination process [5][9]. - The distinction between registered and unregistered trademarks is emphasized, with unregistered trademarks being easier to misuse without oversight [4]. - There is a call for improved regulatory frameworks to prevent misleading trademarks from being registered and used in the market [10][11]. Group 3: Consumer Impact - Consumers often find it difficult to seek redress when misled by trademarks, as the burden of proof lies heavily on them [8][10]. - The article notes that misleading trademarks not only harm consumers but also disrupt fair market competition, potentially driving honest businesses out of the market [8]. - There are instances where consumers have paid significantly more for products due to misleading branding, such as "壹号土" black pork ribs priced much higher than regular options [7]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that a multi-faceted approach is needed to address the issue, including better regulatory practices and consumer education [10][11]. - It advocates for a collaborative effort among regulatory bodies, industry associations, and consumers to create a more transparent and fair market environment [11]. - The establishment of a credit commitment system for trademark registration is proposed to penalize those who obtain trademarks through deceptive means [11].

Core Viewpoint - The case of a Shanghai citizen suing a bank for harassment calls and winning compensation highlights the need for a multi-faceted governance system to combat marketing harassment, rather than relying solely on individual consumer action [1][2][3] Group 1: Consumer Rights and Challenges - Individual consumers face high costs and risks when pursuing legal action against harassment calls, as evidenced by the lengthy process and difficulty in gathering evidence [2] - The majority of consumers tend to endure harassment silently or respond passively, revealing a significant gap between the "silent majority" and the "assertive minority" [2] Group 2: Corporate Responsibility - The lack of corporate responsibility is a fundamental reason for the persistence of harassment calls, with banks and telecom operators benefiting from aggressive marketing practices [2] - Companies often prioritize performance over ethical marketing practices, leading to the exploitation of customer data for aggressive sales tactics [2] Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Framework - Current consumer protection and personal information laws have limitations in execution, with unclear standards for identifying harassment calls and penalties for violations [3] - Regulatory bodies need to establish stricter enforcement measures and clearer definitions to deter companies from engaging in harassment practices [3] Group 4: Technological Solutions - The misuse of technology contributes to the proliferation of harassment calls, necessitating the implementation of advanced systems for automatic call interception and monitoring of suspicious dialing behavior [3] - A robust tracing mechanism for harassment calls is essential to hold responsible parties accountable [3] Group 5: Collective Action for Change - The victory of the consumer in this case serves as a catalyst for broader consumer rights advocacy, emphasizing the need for collective efforts from businesses, regulators, and technology providers to create a more transparent and accountable environment [3]

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the Supreme Court's interpretation on prepaid consumption disputes has led to improved consumer rights and experiences, particularly in the fitness industry, where consumers are now more empowered to seek refunds and transfer memberships [1][3][8]. Group 1: Consumer Experiences - A consumer named Wang faced difficulties in obtaining a refund after experiencing injuries from a fitness program, but successfully sued for a full refund after the new interpretation was enacted [2][5]. - Another consumer, Teng, resolved a two-year dispute regarding unused training sessions after the interpretation clarified her rights, leading to a court ruling in her favor [6][7]. Group 2: Business Adjustments - Many businesses, including gyms and beauty salons, have adjusted their policies to allow easier refunds and membership transfers in response to the new interpretation [4][10]. - Individual businesses tend to have fewer restrictions on refunds and transfers compared to chain stores, which often provide clearer contracts and service optimizations [4]. Group 3: Legal Clarifications - The interpretation outlines specific consumer rights, including a seven-day no-reason refund policy, which addresses the information asymmetry between consumers and businesses [3][11]. - It identifies seven types of unfair contract terms related to prepaid services, empowering consumers to challenge unreasonable clauses [8][9]. Group 4: Recommendations for Consumers - Consumers are advised to strengthen their evidence collection practices, such as retaining contracts, payment records, and communication with businesses to support their claims [12][13]. - The interpretation emphasizes the importance of clear contractual agreements and the need for consumers to understand their rights regarding refunds and service quality [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of issuing invoices in business transactions and the legal implications of failing to do so, highlighting consumer rights and the responsibilities of businesses under the law [7][8]. Summary by Relevant Sections Invoice Issuance Regulations - According to the "Invoice Management Measures of the People's Republic of China," businesses are required to issue invoices for sales and services, with specific provisions for penalties if invoices are not issued [8]. - The law states that failure to issue an invoice can result in fines of up to 10,000 yuan, and any illegal gains may be confiscated [8]. Consumer Rights - Consumers have the right to request invoices and can demand compliance from businesses that fail to issue them, reinforcing the principle of good faith in business operations [7]. - The article illustrates a scenario where a consumer insists on their rights regarding invoice issuance and product exchanges, showcasing the legal backing for such claims [6][7]. Business Compliance - Businesses are urged to comply with tax regulations and maintain proper invoicing practices to avoid penalties and protect their credit records [7][8]. - The article mentions a case where a business agreed to issue invoices after being informed of the legal requirements, indicating a shift towards better compliance [7].

Core Viewpoint - The case of a young woman, Wang, who exploited hotel policies to obtain refunds under false pretenses, highlights the issue of fraudulent claims disguised as consumer rights protection [1][3][4] Group 1: Fraudulent Behavior - Wang's actions involved intentionally causing skin irritation to claim hotel hygiene issues, leading to refund requests at multiple hotels [1][3] - The investigation revealed that Wang had a history of similar disputes across various hotels, indicating a pattern of behavior aimed at financial gain [1][2] - The total amount involved in her fraudulent activities is estimated to exceed tens of thousands of yuan, affecting over ten hotels [2][3] Group 2: Legal Implications - Wang's conduct is classified as extortion and public disorder, moving beyond legitimate consumer rights claims to criminal behavior [3][4] - Legal interpretations and practices clearly state that such fraudulent claims do not receive protection under consumer rights laws and may lead to criminal charges [4][5] - The case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in consumer rights advocacy [5]

Core Viewpoint - The cancellation of the "refund only" policy by e-commerce platforms represents a significant regression in consumer rights, leading to increased risks and challenges for consumers in the current shopping environment [4][5][11]. Group 1: Consumer Rights and E-commerce Dynamics - The removal of the "refund only" option has shifted the balance of power towards merchants, making it harder for consumers to contest poor-quality products [3][4]. - This change is perceived as a systematic trial of consumer limits, undermining previously established protections that allowed consumers to voice their grievances [4][11]. - The competitive landscape of e-commerce has evolved, with major platforms becoming less concerned about consumer feedback, resulting in less favorable pricing and more complex promotional rules [7][9]. Group 2: Consumer Response and Market Trends - Despite the challenges, consumers are beginning to organize and expose subpar merchants through social media and video platforms, indicating a shift towards collective action [9][11]. - There is a growing awareness among consumers about the importance of information literacy, encouraging them to research product reviews and merchant histories before making purchases [9][11]. - The hope remains that consumer backlash will eventually lead to improved market conditions and a return to valuing consumer trust and satisfaction [11].