Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges and controversies surrounding ticket refunds for performances, highlighting the disparity between consumer expectations for refunds and the ticketing platforms' policies that often deny refunds due to the unique nature of event tickets [1][2]. Group 1: Consumer Complaints and Trends - A significant increase in complaints related to ticket refunds has been reported, with over 90% of concert-related complaints in the first half of 2025 focusing on refund requests [1][2]. - The issue of difficulty in obtaining refunds for event tickets has been a prominent topic in consumer rights discussions, particularly in 2023 [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Context - The legal framework allows for a "seven-day no-reason return" policy for online purchases, but event tickets are classified as "time-sensitive" and "scarce," which justifies their exclusion from this policy [2][3]. - Current laws do not provide clear guidelines on the refundability of tickets, leading to ongoing disputes and confusion among consumers and legal experts [3][6]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Industry Practices - Many consumers face strict refund policies, with platforms often refusing refunds even in cases of personal emergencies, citing the nature of tickets as non-refundable items [3][5]. - The ticketing industry has established a norm of "no refunds," which has been criticized as an unfair practice that limits consumer rights [7][10]. Group 4: Proposed Solutions and Regulatory Improvements - Experts suggest that a more structured refund mechanism should be implemented, similar to those in the airline and railway industries, to provide clearer guidelines for consumers [7][10]. - Recommendations include establishing a tiered refund system based on the time remaining until the event, allowing for partial refunds under certain conditions [9][10].

【法眼观】 在网购时代，"七天无理由退货"已成一种常态。然而，当消费者购买了演出、展览、演唱会门票 时，却可能面临一道难以逾越的退票鸿沟。 前不久，北京的李玉（化名）抱怨：她在某平台为孩子购买了亲子展览票后，才在不显眼处发 现"身高不足一米二儿童免票"的说明。孩子可以免票，李玉想退掉亲子票，单独购买成人票，却发现平 台没有退款选项。客服的回复冰冷而坚决："票品为有价票券，非普通商品，其背后承载的文化服务具 有时效性、稀缺性等特征，不支持退换。" 社交媒体上，很多与李玉经历相似的消费者在无奈求助。中国消费者协会8月6日发布的《2025年上 半年全国消协组织受理投诉情况分析》报告指出，演唱会相关投诉量在上半年持续增长，其中涉及退票 诉求的比例惊人地超过了90%。事实上，"线下演出退票难"争议早在2023年就已登上当年上半年中消协 消费维权舆情热点首位。 为何演出门票如此"特殊"？持续多年的退票争议为何悬而未决？又该如何有效化解？记者就这些问 题进行了采访。 溯源 门票为何不能七天无理由退 在网购"后悔权"被法律严格保障的今天，演出门票的"不可退"显得格外刺眼。其特殊性究竟何在？ 首都经济贸易大学法学院副教授胡翔指 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of the consumer, stating that the seller must refund the purchase despite the product page indicating "no seven-day unconditional return" due to discrepancies between the product and its online representation [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Context - According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, consumers have the right to a seven-day unconditional return for online purchases, and the sofa in question is not classified as an exception [2]. - The seller failed to provide evidence that the product's nature would change or lose value upon unsealing, thus the seller's claim of "no return" was deemed non-binding [2]. Group 2: Case Details - The consumer, Ms. Li, purchased a sofa priced at 2000 yuan, which did not match the color and size displayed online, leading her to seek a return [1]. - The seller's refusal to process the return based on the product page's note was rejected by the court, which found that the seller's unilateral terms were not valid [2]. Group 3: Consumer Guidance - Consumers are advised to carefully review product details and service terms before purchasing online and to confirm key information with sellers [3]. - The law allows for returns unless the product is inherently unsuitable for return, and sellers cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of non-returnable items [3].

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court released five typical civil cases related to online consumption, emphasizing the importance of merchants' integrity and the legal protection of consumers' rights [1][3] - In a case involving a handbag purchase, the court ruled that the seller must refund the buyer despite the seller's claim of no return policy, as the seller failed to provide reasonable justification for the return restriction [1][2] - A furniture company misled a customer regarding a promotional discount, resulting in a court ruling that the company must refund the customer half of the payment due to misleading promotional practices [2][3] Group 2 - A ticketing platform was ordered to refund a customer fully for concert tickets, as the platform's return policy was deemed ambiguous and not clearly communicated [3] - The cases highlight the need for clear and consumer-friendly return policies in the online retail and ticketing industries to prevent misunderstandings and protect consumer rights [3] - The Supreme Court indicated a commitment to exploring and summarizing trends in online consumption, aiming to support the expansion of online shopping through legal frameworks [3]

Core Viewpoint - The collective return of clothing by students from Shenyang Liaomei Vocational School highlights issues surrounding the "seven-day no-reason return" policy, raising questions about consumer rights and the integrity of the return process [2][3][5] Group 1: Legal Framework - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is designed to protect online consumers, allowing returns without explanation within seven days of receipt [2] - However, the law stipulates that returned items must be in "good condition," meaning they should not be used or damaged, which the returned clothing clearly violated [2][3] Group 2: Ethical Considerations - The principle of good faith in civil activities is emphasized, indicating that consumers should act honestly, and the students' actions of returning used clothing contradict this principle [3] - The incident reflects a broader issue of social integrity, as exploiting return policies undermines trust in consumer transactions [3] Group 3: E-commerce Platform Issues - The e-commerce platform's reliance on algorithms for risk control led to a blanket ban on the merchant's store due to high return rates, indicating a flaw in the platform's operational mechanisms [3][4] - The lack of a manual review process for unusual return patterns can result in unjust penalties for honest merchants [3][4] Group 4: Institutional Responsibility - The school bears some responsibility for the incident, as the event should have been planned with consideration for costs and integrity education [3][4] - Previous similar incidents at other institutions suggest a pattern of exploiting return policies, indicating a need for better oversight and education on consumer rights [4] Group 5: Recommendations for Improvement - There is a call for legal clarification on "malicious returns" and increased penalties for exploitative behaviors to protect merchants [4] - E-commerce platforms should implement a hybrid review system combining artificial intelligence and human oversight to better manage return policies [4] - Schools should develop fair cost-sharing mechanisms for event-related expenses to prevent students from resorting to unethical practices [4]

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving over 60 students from a vocational school collectively returning purchased clothing raises concerns about consumer rights abuse and the responsibilities of educational institutions in ensuring ethical behavior among students [5][16]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A store owner reported that over 60 students from a vocational school in Shenyang collectively returned clothing they had purchased online, claiming "quality issues" after wearing them for a school event, resulting in a loss of approximately 8,000 yuan [3][4]. - The store owner noted that the students had not removed the tags from the clothing and returned items that were dirty, indicating they had been used [4][6]. - The school administration responded by apologizing and promising to recover the clothing and cover related costs, indicating a resolution was reached between the store and the school [6]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Implications - Legal experts highlighted that while online clothing purchases are subject to a seven-day no-reason return policy, the condition for returns is that items must be in a "good condition," which excludes used or damaged items [12][14]. - The incident reflects a broader trend of students returning used clothing, which raises ethical questions about consumer behavior and the potential for fraud [10][16]. - The article emphasizes the need for schools to address such behavior publicly and to educate students on integrity, as well as the importance of protecting the rights of small businesses against such practices [16].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the misuse of the "seven-day no-reason return" policy by some consumers, reflecting a troubling trend in consumer behavior where the original intent of protecting consumer rights is being exploited for personal gain [4][5][6] Group 1: Case Studies - A case involving a customer, Ms. Guo, who returned a worn bra after six months of use, claiming it was a new purchase, illustrates the issue of fraudulent returns [1][3] - Another case from Shandong Province involved a customer, Mr. Li, who returned a deck of cards and a bar of soap instead of the purchased Apple charger, leading to a court ruling in favor of the seller [4] Group 2: Legal and Ethical Implications - The article discusses the legal framework surrounding consumer rights, emphasizing that the misuse of return policies constitutes fraud, which can lead to legal consequences for the consumer [5][6] - It points out the need for businesses to enhance their return verification processes, such as implementing anti-tampering labels and creating blacklists for repeat offenders [6][7] Group 3: Societal Reflection - The misuse of return policies reflects a broader societal issue where a minority of consumers exploit loopholes, contrasting with the majority who adhere to ethical consumption practices [5][6] - The article suggests that restoring trust in commercial transactions requires a collective commitment to integrity and ethical behavior among consumers [6][7]