宣传时说得天花乱坠，消费时却频繁踩坑，这是很多消费者对手机流量业务的共同感受。出现这种体验 偏差，关键问题在"选择性告知"上，比如，运营商在各种渠道宣传不同套餐产品的特点，而相应的限制 条件却避而不谈，甚至刻意隐藏限制条款，属于典型的"信息不对称"。近年来，为了提升竞争力，一些 企业在推介产品时往往选择"说一套做一套""只说其一不说其二"，由此导致的消费纠纷层出不穷。在消 费市场，品牌形象的建立、用户忠诚度的积累，靠的不是"忽悠"，更不是用市场优势地位"店大欺客"。 弯弯绕绕的门道和套路，或许可以蒙蔽消费者一时，却不是企业良性发展的长久之计。大道至简，真诚 才是永远的"必杀技"。 来源：工人日报 李法明/图 嘉湖/文 "定向流量没怎么动，通用流量快跑没了""买了安心流量上网包还是被限速"……据10月9日新华社报 道，一些用户反映当前手机流量业务种类繁多、规则复杂，不少业务看起来惠民便民，实则设置了诸多 限制条款，稍不留意就会被多扣钱。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a vehicle with a 50-liter fuel tank being charged for 67.96 liters of gasoline has been investigated, with the involved company, China Petroleum Chengdu Sales, issuing an apology for the situation [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On August 9, a consumer dispute arose when a vehicle owner refueled at the China Petroleum Gaoxin Tianshan gas station, leading to police involvement and the sealing of the involved fuel pump [1]. - The Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration received a complaint on August 11 and conducted an on-site inspection the following day, leading to preliminary compensation by the gas station on August 12 [1][3]. - The vehicle owner provided evidence on August 20, prompting further investigation by the market supervision bureau [1]. Group 2: Investigation Findings - The investigation revealed that the involved fuel pump's backend data erroneously added a previous transaction of 27.18 liters to the current transaction, resulting in a total charge of 67.96 liters instead of the actual 40.78 liters [3]. - Since the fuel pump's calibration on June 5, 2025, there have been 2,863 transactions, with only this particular transaction showing data transmission anomalies, attributed to hardware and software faults [3]. Group 3: Company Response - China Petroleum Chengdu Sales expressed sincere apologies for the negative consumer experience and acknowledged the oversight from the market supervision department [3]. - The company committed to addressing management and service issues by enhancing equipment management, improving service response mechanisms, and strengthening employee training to protect consumer rights [3].

Core Viewpoint - The investigation confirmed that a car owner was overcharged for fuel due to a malfunction in the fuel dispenser, which resulted in a duplicate charge of 200 yuan for 27.18 liters of fuel [7][8]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On August 9, a car owner reported a dispute at the Tianshan gas station regarding an overcharge when refueling [5]. - The gas station sealed the involved fuel dispenser for investigation, and the owner received a preliminary compensation on August 12 [5][6]. - The local market supervision authority initiated an investigation after receiving the complaint [5]. Group 2: Investigation Findings - The investigation revealed that the overcharge was legitimate, attributed to a software and hardware malfunction in the fuel dispenser [7]. - Key components of the fuel dispenser were found to be intact and compliant with measurement standards [7]. - The vehicle's fuel tank capacity was confirmed to be consistent with its specifications, ruling out any issues with the tank itself [7]. - The faulty transaction was traced to the fuel dispenser's data system, which incorrectly added a previous transaction's amount to the current one [7]. Group 3: Future Actions - The market supervision authority will require the gas company to implement comprehensive corrective measures and publicly apologize to consumers [8]. - There will be an emphasis on improving service quality and addressing consumer complaints more effectively [8].

Core Viewpoint - The investigation revealed that a customer was overcharged due to a malfunction in the fuel dispenser, which led to a duplicate billing of 27.18 liters, resulting in a total charge of 200 yuan for 40.78 liters of fuel instead of the actual amount [4][9][11]. Group 1: Incident Background - On August 9, a customer reported a dispute at the Tianshan gas station regarding being charged for 67.96 liters of fuel for a 50-liter tank [2]. - The gas station sealed the involved fuel dispenser under police supervision, and the customer was compensated shortly after the incident [2][3]. - The local market supervision authority received the complaint and initiated an investigation, which included a joint meeting with the relevant company to address the issue [3]. Group 2: Investigation Findings - The investigation confirmed that the customer was indeed overcharged by 200 yuan due to a malfunction in the fuel dispenser's software and hardware, leading to repeated billing [4][9]. - The fuel dispenser was found to be compliant with measurement standards, and no tampering or abnormal operations by staff were detected during the investigation [5][6]. - Tests conducted on the vehicle confirmed that its fuel tank capacity was consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, ruling out the possibility of an oversized tank [7]. Group 3: Next Steps and Company Response - The market supervision authority will require the company to implement comprehensive corrective measures, publicly apologize to consumers, and improve service quality [10]. - The company acknowledged the issue and expressed regret for the negative consumer experience, committing to enhance equipment management and staff training [11].

Core Viewpoint - A car owner reported being overcharged at a gas station in Chengdu, where a 50-liter fuel tank was charged for 67.96 liters of gasoline, leading to widespread attention and subsequent investigations [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The incident occurred on August 9, when the car owner filled up at the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) gas station, resulting in a dispute over the charge [4]. - The gas station initially refused to acknowledge the discrepancy, prompting the car owner to file complaints with multiple departments [1][4]. - Following the complaints, the gas station's fuel pump was sealed, and the owner received a refund three days later [1][4]. Group 2: Investigation Findings - The Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration confirmed the overcharging was valid, attributing it to a malfunction in the gas pump's software and hardware, which caused repeated billing [3][6]. - The gas pump in question had recorded 2,863 transactions since its last calibration on June 5, 2025, with only the disputed transaction showing data transmission errors [3][7]. - Investigations revealed that the actual amount of gasoline dispensed was 40.78 liters, while the system erroneously charged for 67.96 liters due to a data overlap from a previous transaction [7]. Group 3: Future Measures - The Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration will require CNPC to implement comprehensive reforms, publicly apologize to consumers, and enhance service quality [8]. - There will be an emphasis on improving supervision and complaint mechanisms to better protect consumer rights [8].

Group 1 - The core issue involves a complaint from a car owner regarding being charged for 67.96 liters of gasoline for a 50-liter fuel tank, leading to an investigation by the Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration [1][2] - The investigation confirmed that the car owner was overcharged by 200 yuan due to a malfunction in the fuel dispenser's software and hardware, which caused a duplicate billing [3][7] - The Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration will require the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to implement comprehensive rectifications and publicly apologize to consumers [7] Group 2 - The fuel dispenser's key components were found to be intact and compliant with measurement standards, with no evidence of tampering or intentional inaccuracies [4] - Investigators did not find any abnormal operational behavior from the staff at the gas station during the incident [5] - Tests conducted on the vehicle confirmed that its fuel tank capacity was consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, ruling out the possibility of an oversized tank [6]

Group 1 - The incident involved a car owner who reported being charged for 67.96 liters of gasoline despite having a 50-liter fuel tank, leading to a consumer dispute at the Tianshan gas station [1][2] - The investigation confirmed that the car owner was overcharged by 200 yuan, attributed to a malfunction in the gas pump's software and hardware, causing duplicate billing [2][5] - The gas pump's key components were found to be intact and compliant with measurement standards, with no evidence of tampering or operational misconduct by the gas station staff [3][4] Group 2 - Tests conducted on the vehicle confirmed that its fuel tank capacity was consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, ruling out the possibility of an oversized tank [4] - The investigation revealed that the gas pump's system erroneously added the previous transaction's volume of 27.18 liters to the current transaction, resulting in the overcharge [5] - The Chengdu High-tech Zone Market Supervision Administration plans to enforce comprehensive rectifications at the gas station, including public apologies and improvements in service quality [5][6]

Consumer Complaints Overview - In the first quarter of 2025, Guangdong's consumer committees received a total of 15,986 complaints, marking a year-on-year increase of 4.37% [1] - The total economic loss recovered for consumers was approximately 108 million yuan [1] Movie Industry Complaints - Complaints related to movie screenings and performance services reached 1,750, reflecting a quarter-on-quarter increase of 23.15% [1] - Key issues included cinemas unilaterally exempting themselves from providing 3D glasses, unreasonable ticket refund policies, and inadequate service quality affecting the viewing experience [1] Airline Industry Complaints - Transportation-related complaints totaled 2,765, with 2,138 specifically concerning air travel, representing a significant quarter-on-quarter increase of 150.64% [3] - Major complaints involved misleading bundled sales practices, poor after-sales service, and frequent price fluctuations without corresponding service quality improvements [3] Consumer Guidance - Consumers are advised to verify the provision of 3D glasses before purchasing tickets and to retain evidence for potential disputes [2] - When purchasing airline tickets, it is recommended to use reputable platforms, compare prices, and understand the terms regarding refunds and additional fees [4]