更多报道请扫二维码 问：春节期间，品牌金店客流不断，首饰金消费热度不减，购买首饰金后能"七天无理由退货"吗？ 答：根据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二十五条，消费者定作的，鲜活易腐的，在线下载或 者消费者拆封的音像制品、计算机软件等数字化商品，交付的报纸、期刊以及其他根据商品性质并经消 费者在购买时确认不宜退货的商品，不适用七天无理由退货。 退货权利并不绝对 首饰金"七天无理由退货"的权利并不绝对，与商品类型、购买渠道、平台规则、商家条款密切相关。消 费者在购买前需与商家充分交流，明确退换货规则细节，注意退货时间、手续费等关键条款，妥善保存 订单记录、聊天记录等凭证。如商家支持无理由退货，消费者也需承担确保商品完好、凭证齐全、不影 响二次销售等义务。 当前黄金价格波动较大，购买首饰金后仅以金价下跌主张"七天无理由退货"难度不小，消费者应理性决 策，平衡情感喜好、佩戴价值与价格风险。购买首饰金需选择有正规资质的渠道，仔细验收商品包装、 配件等，区分质量问题和无理由退货的差别，维护自身合法权益。（文/经济日报记者 尚咲） (责任编辑：苗苏) 消费者因标识不清、工艺瑕疵、重量不符等质量缺陷要求退货是法定权利， ...

新春期间，首饰金消费热情不减，但购买后能退货吗？"七天无理由退货"是消费者重要的"后悔权"，但 对黄金这类特殊商品来说，适用情况较为复杂，一起来看本期快问快答↓ Q 首饰金和投资金条、金币的退货规则一样吗？ A:根据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二十五条，消费者定作的，鲜活易腐的，在线下载或 者消费者拆封的音像制品、计算机软件等数字化商品，交付的报纸、期刊以及其他根据商品性质并经消 费者在购买时确认不宜退货的商品，不适用七天无理由退货。黄金虽未被明确列入其中，但由于贵金属 的特殊性质，一般属于不宜退货的商品。 投资金条、金币并非普通消费品，价格波动是常见风险，银行、线上电商、品牌金店普遍不支持其无理 由退货。不过，相较于投资金条、金币的金融属性，首饰金消费属性更强，"七天无理由退货"有一定的 协商空间。 Q 首饰金何时适用"七天无理由退货"？ A:消费者因标识不清、工艺瑕疵、重量不符等质量缺陷要求退货是法定权利，不受"七天"或"无理由"的 限制，而首饰金的无理由退货主要适用于一些线上平台。在无质量瑕疵时，实体金店销售金饰一般"离 柜概不退换"，即使买贵了，也只能以补差价的形式调换款式。 Q A:线上渠道 ...

投资金条、金币并非普通消费品，价格波动是常见风险，银行、线上电商、品牌金店普遍不支持其无理 由退货。不过，相较于投资金条、金币的金融属性，首饰金消费属性更强，"七天无理由退货"有一定的 协商空间。 新春期间，首饰金消费热情不减，但购买后能退货吗？"七天无理由退货"是消费者重要的"后悔权"，但 对黄金这类特殊商品来说，适用情况较为复杂，一起来看。 问：首饰金和投资金条、金币的退货规则一样吗？ 答：根据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二十五条，消费者定作的，鲜活易腐的，在线下载或 者消费者拆封的音像制品、计算机软件等数字化商品，交付的报纸、期刊以及其他根据商品性质并经消 费者在购买时确认不宜退货的商品，不适用七天无理由退货。黄金虽未被明确列入其中，但由于贵金属 的特殊性质，一般属于不宜退货的商品。 答：线上渠道规则由平台制定且存在差异，因而更依赖商家的自愿承诺。记者线上咨询老庙、六福珠 宝、潮宏基、周大生等多家品牌金店得知，即使平台标注首饰金"不支持七天无理由退货"，但商家为吸 引顾客、提升体验，会选择提供延伸服务。 此外，各家具体规定存在差异，无理由退货的时间未必是"七天"，例如，潮宏基明确消费者应在订单签 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the applicability of the "seven-day no-reason return" policy for second-hand goods purchased online, highlighting a recent court ruling on a case involving a second-hand bag purchase [1] Group 1: Consumer Rights - The Consumer Protection Law stipulates that online shoppers have the right to a "seven-day no-reason return" [1] - The article raises the question of whether this right extends to second-hand items, given their unique characteristics [1] Group 2: Legal Precedents - A recent court ruling denied a woman's request to return a second-hand bag, indicating that the "seven-day no-reason return" policy may not apply to second-hand goods [1]

Core Viewpoint - The rise of "wear and return" practices among consumers is causing significant financial losses for e-commerce merchants, as they face challenges in managing returns of damaged or used items under the current return policies [1][3][16]. Group 1: Impact on Merchants - Merchants report that up to 30% of their annual revenue is lost due to returns of damaged items, which are often unsellable [7][8]. - Many merchants have begun implementing measures such as large tags and password locks on items to deter "wear and return" behavior, but these efforts have had limited success [13][14]. - The average order value for merchants is around 200 yuan, with approximately 300 returned items annually affecting resale potential, leading to losses of about 60,000 yuan per year [7][8]. Group 2: Challenges in Return Policies - Merchants face difficulties in rejecting returns of damaged items due to stringent platform rules that favor consumers, making it hard to provide sufficient evidence for claims [8][9]. - The process for merchants to appeal return decisions is cumbersome, often requiring expensive quality reports that exceed the value of the returned items [8][12]. - Many merchants have experienced receiving items with severe odors or stains, which complicates the resale process and leads to further financial losses [6][9]. Group 3: Consumer Behavior and Platform Response - Consumers are increasingly exploiting the "7-day no-reason return" policy, treating it as a trial period for clothing, which undermines the original intent of the policy [16][17]. - Some platforms have introduced features to help merchants filter out high-return customers, but the effectiveness of these measures remains questionable [14][15]. - Legal experts suggest that platforms need to refine their return policies to create a fairer environment for merchants while ensuring consumer rights are protected [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - The abuse of the "seven-day no-reason return" policy has raised significant social concerns, with instances of consumers returning used items, leading to financial strain on businesses and prompting them to expose dishonest practices online [1][4]. Group 1: Background and Purpose of the Policy - The "seven-day no-reason return" system was established to address the limitations of online shopping, providing consumers with a "right to regret" and enhancing consumer confidence by reducing trial-and-error costs [4]. - This initiative aimed to promote consumption and achieve a win-win situation, but some consumers exploit the loopholes, treating the policy as a means for free rentals and causing losses to businesses [4]. Group 2: Consequences of Abuse - The malicious return behavior leads to increased costs for businesses, which may raise prices or implement measures like "giant tags" to prevent such abuses, ultimately passing these costs onto all consumers [4]. - The ambiguity in defining "product integrity" during returns creates challenges for businesses in protecting their rights, leading to public exposure of customer information, which can result in backlash against both the customers and the businesses involved [4]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - There is a need for more detailed regulations to clarify the standards of "product integrity," especially for clothing items that may be returned with stains or odors [5]. - E-commerce platforms should establish fair dispute resolution mechanisms, utilizing technology to identify and restrict accounts that frequently engage in malicious returns, while providing businesses with effective channels for appeals [5]. Group 4: Social Responsibility and Education - Social education and moral guidance are essential, particularly for student groups engaging in collective exploitation of the policy; schools and families should not dismiss these actions as harmless [6]. - Integrity should be emphasized as a crucial aspect of personal character and societal interaction, with a focus on teaching young people the importance of honesty in financial transactions [6]. Group 5: Overall Goals - The ultimate goal is not punishment but the establishment of reasonable rules and a compliant environment that protects the legitimate interests of all parties involved, ensuring that honest individuals are rewarded while those who exploit the system face consequences [7].

Core Viewpoint - The rise of malicious returns in e-commerce, particularly in the clothing sector, is causing significant challenges for merchants, leading to increased operational costs and potential losses [2][6][11] Group 1: Malicious Returns Impact on Merchants - Merchants are facing difficulties with malicious returns, where items are returned after being worn or damaged, leading to financial losses [3][6] - A case study highlighted a merchant who experienced a high return rate, with items returned after being used for performances, resulting in unsellable goods [3][4] - The operational costs associated with returns, including logistics and handling, are increasing, which could lead to price hikes for consumers or threaten the viability of small businesses [6][11] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Framework - Current laws, including the Civil Code and the upcoming Consumer Rights Protection Law, emphasize the principle of good faith, aiming to prevent the abuse of return policies by consumers [8][14] - Legal experts suggest that consumers who exploit return policies for profit may face legal consequences, including compensation for damages [8][14] - There is a call for improved regulatory measures to balance consumer rights with merchant protections, potentially through a consumer credit system to identify repeat offenders [13][14] Group 3: Merchant Strategies to Combat Returns - Merchants are adopting strategies such as using oversized tags to deter consumers from trying on items and returning them, although this may affect customer experience [10][12] - The effectiveness of these measures is still under evaluation, as they may lead to reduced sales and increased costs for merchants [12][13] - Experts recommend that merchants document the condition of items before shipping to strengthen their position in disputes over returns [9][14]

Core Viewpoint - The rise of online shopping has led to increased use of large tags and anti-theft devices on clothing, reflecting merchants' concerns over high return rates and potential losses from returned items that cannot be resold [1][8]. Group 1: Merchant Experiences - Merchants like Zhou Yuanxia and Wang Meng have adopted large tags and anti-theft devices to prevent returns of worn or damaged clothing, which is particularly problematic for items like Hanfu and Tang suits that have higher return rates [4][6]. - Wang Meng noted that while the use of large tags increases costs and reduces sales, it effectively mitigates losses from returns [6]. - E-commerce operators like Yan Qinqin have shifted focus from promoting products to managing returns, facing challenges with customers attempting to return items beyond the allowed return period [10][12]. Group 2: Consumer Impact - Consumers have expressed frustration with large tags that obstruct the view of clothing details, impacting their shopping experience and leading to potential returns due to sizing issues [17][19]. - Many consumers believe that only a small number of individuals engage in malicious return practices, suggesting that the majority are honest buyers affected by the stringent return policies [19][20]. Group 3: Industry Challenges - The overall return rate for women's clothing online hovers around 50% to 60%, with some sectors like live-streaming e-commerce exceeding 80%, leading to increased operational costs for merchants [28][30]. - The costs associated with returns, including logistics and product damage, can significantly erode profit margins, making it crucial for merchants to manage return policies effectively [30][32]. - Experts suggest that e-commerce platforms need to enhance their ability to identify and manage return behaviors to protect both consumer rights and merchant interests [32][34]. Group 4: Solutions and Recommendations - Experts recommend that platforms utilize big data to create a credit evaluation system that can help identify trustworthy consumers and flag suspicious return behaviors [34][36]. - There is a call for technological solutions to improve the tracking of consumer behavior and establish a credit rating system for return actions, which could help maintain trust in the market [36].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a consumer's return of a down jacket has sparked significant online debate, with accusations of "free riding" and privacy violations due to the exposure of personal information in a viral video [2][4][11]. Group 1: Consumer's Actions and Responses - The consumer, referred to as Ms. Su, claimed that her return of the down jacket was legitimate and compliant with regulations, citing a broken tag as the primary reason for her return [7]. - Ms. Su stated that she only wore the jacket once during her trip and returned it within seven days, countering claims that she intended to "wear it for free" [7]. - The consumer's social media account provided evidence of communication with the seller, confirming that the jacket was new despite the tag issue [4][6]. Group 2: Seller's Perspective and Actions - The seller acknowledged the return and refund process, clarifying that the video in question was released by the supplier without knowledge of the agreed refund [9]. - The seller expressed concern over the impact of the incident on their business, indicating that the situation affected both parties involved [9]. - The seller's customer service confirmed that the return was processed according to platform policies, despite the jacket having some issues [9]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Context - Legal experts highlighted that for a return to be resold, the item must be in "new and unused" condition, and any damage or loss of value could lead to legal repercussions for the seller if sold as new [13]. - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is designed to protect consumers but should not be abused for malicious returns, which can harm sellers and disrupt market order [15]. - E-commerce platforms are urged to enhance their mechanisms to balance the rights of consumers and sellers, ensuring fair practices in the return process [17].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a consumer returning a down jacket after a short period of use has sparked significant online discussion, raising questions about consumer behavior and the implications of return policies in e-commerce [1][3][5]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A video surfaced showing a woman, identified as Ms. Su, returning a down jacket after wearing it during a trip to Harbin, which led to public criticism of her actions as "free riding" [1][3]. - The video included details of her flight ticket, which further fueled online investigations into her identity and actions [3]. Group 2: Consumer's Response - Ms. Su defended her actions, claiming she purchased the jacket for 633 yuan and only wore it once, stating that the jacket had a damaged tag, suggesting it may have been previously returned [8][11]. - She emphasized that her return was within the seven-day return policy and was not an attempt to exploit the system, as she was still traveling when she initiated the return [8][14]. Group 3: Merchant's Perspective - The merchant acknowledged the return and stated that the situation was resolved with a refund, indicating that the video was released without their consent and did not reflect the agreed-upon resolution [10][11]. - The merchant's customer service confirmed that they followed platform procedures for the return and refund process [11]. Group 4: Legal and Regulatory Context - Legal experts highlighted that for a return to be considered valid for resale, the item must be in perfect condition, and any signs of use could lead to legal repercussions for the seller if sold as new [14][15]. - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is designed to protect consumers but should not be abused for malicious returns, which can harm merchants and disrupt market order [15][16]. Group 5: Platform Responsibilities - E-commerce platforms are urged to enhance their mechanisms to balance the rights of consumers and merchants, including verifying the condition of returned items and monitoring for abnormal return patterns [17]. - Experts suggest that platforms should implement measures to prevent misuse of return policies, such as requiring evidence of the item's condition at the time of return [17][18].