记者注意到，此前，海底捞曾因"小便门"事件陷入舆论风波。2025年，一则海底捞火锅店内有人"向火 锅小便"的短视频引发关注，之后涉案的唐某(男，17岁)和吴某(男，17岁)被行政拘留。2025年9月，上 海市黄浦区人民法院判令两名未成年人及其监护人在指定报刊上赔礼道歉，赔偿涉事餐饮公司经济损失 共计220万元。 那么此次事件中，商家应该如何维权？岳屾山指出，首先，商家要固定证据，立即利用店内监控，多角 度、完整地记录下事件过程、涉事人员以及造成的直接损害。其次，确定索赔依据，消费者的行为侵犯 了商家的财产权(被污染的食材、锅具等)以及名誉权(品牌形象的负面评价等)。再次，进行理性协商。 在证据清晰的基础上，商家可以首先与涉事顾客(特别是监护人)进行沟通。最后，如果双方无法就赔偿 事项达成一致，可以采取民事诉讼的方式向人民法院提起财产损害赔偿和名誉权诉讼。 首先是民事赔偿，根据《民法典》第一千一百六十五条规定，行为人因过错侵害他人民事权益造成损害 的，应当承担侵权责任。孩子的行为造成了商家的直接损失，包括被污染的食材、设备成本及该餐位合 理的营业损失。此外，《民法典》第一千零二十四条规定了民事主体享有名誉权。此 ...

12月29日，话题"商家吐槽网购羽绒服旅游半个月退回"登上微博热搜。相关视频中，拍摄者称海南的苏女士购买了一件长款羽绒服，（穿着）跑到哈尔滨 旅游，衣服上到处都是油，穿了半个月又将衣服给退了回去，衣服口袋里还装着机票。拍摄者喊话"是活不起了吗"，该视频被多家媒体及网友转载。 记者注意到，在上述视频里，拍摄者拍摄了羽绒服中携带的机票信息。票据显示，其为一张12月17日飞往哈尔滨的登机牌，航班号为PN6339，乘客名则 为苏某某。 该视频一经发出，立即引发热议。不少网友认为，苏女士的退货行为属于"白嫖"，更有网友以海南IP与苏某某的名字等信息为关键词，上网试图扒出苏女 士的相关账号。 此外，该账号后续又发布作品称"商家跟供货商意识到自己给我退货了，还把个人机票泄露出去，自己把视频下架了，要求我们一起举报他人作品"。其同 步晒出的聊天截图显示，商家称该事情对他们双方都有影响。 据红星新闻报道，12月29日上午，记者找到疑似苏女士的社交账号。针对羽绒服一事，该账号曾发布多条作品进行回应。在12月29日凌晨1点42分，该账 号称"商家寄过来就是吊牌被摘下过"，并晒出其与商家的聊天截图。图中，确有商家承认衣服吊牌在装防尘 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing issue of consumers exploiting return policies in the e-commerce sector, particularly during the "May Day" holiday, leading to significant losses for merchants due to high return rates and operational costs [1][4][5]. Group 1: Impact of Return Policies - Return rates have skyrocketed, with reports indicating rates exceeding 300% during peak periods, meaning for every three items sold, nine were returned [15]. - Merchants face "invisible losses" as returned items often arrive with stains and signs of use, complicating resale and increasing operational costs [4][9][22]. - The phenomenon of consumers keeping tags on clothing to exploit return policies has become a widespread issue, leading to a culture of "white-washing" [17][19]. Group 2: Merchant Responses - Merchants are beginning to take action against these practices, including refusing returns, seeking legal recourse, and organizing collective actions to protect their interests [25][26]. - Some merchants have resorted to blocking buyers from high-return areas, reflecting a desperate measure to mitigate losses [26]. - The rise in awareness and action among merchants indicates a shift towards more proactive measures in defending against exploitative consumer behavior [25][30]. Group 3: Regulatory and Platform Changes - The government has started addressing the issue, with the State Administration for Market Regulation discussing the need for reforms in e-commerce return policies to protect merchants [29][30]. - E-commerce platforms are also adapting their policies, with some limiting the "no-questions-asked" return options to better balance consumer rights and merchant protection [30][31]. - Proposed changes include clearer definitions of what constitutes a returnable item and the establishment of penalties for consumers who abuse return policies [32].