Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misuse of AI-generated images in the e-commerce sector, particularly in the context of "only refund" requests, highlighting the challenges faced by merchants due to the increasing sophistication of these fraudulent practices [3][6]. Group 1: AI Image Fraud in E-commerce - AI-generated fake images have become prevalent, particularly in the categories of clothing, food, and daily necessities, leading to a surge in "only refund" requests [7][8]. - Merchants report that the realism of AI-generated images complicates the refund verification process, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims [28][29]. - The phenomenon has sparked polarized discussions among consumers, with some mocking the intelligence of those attempting to exploit the system, while others express concern over the erosion of trust in e-commerce [29][30]. Group 2: Experimentation with AI Refund Claims - The article details an experiment conducted by the author to test the effectiveness of AI in generating images for refund claims, revealing that the technology is already well-integrated into the refund process across major platforms [31][32]. - The experiment involved selecting products that are easy to manipulate visually, such as transparent items and perishable goods, to exploit the weaknesses in platform verification systems [32][33]. - The results showed that refund requests were processed quickly and without thorough scrutiny, indicating significant loopholes in the current e-commerce refund policies [41][51]. Group 3: Governance and Solutions - The article suggests that addressing the issue of AI-generated refund fraud requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal, technological, and regulatory measures [57][58]. - Legal frameworks exist to penalize fraudulent refund claims, with potential civil and criminal liabilities for consumers who exploit these systems [59][61]. - Recommendations for platforms include establishing consumer trust rating systems, enhancing image verification technologies, and improving refund request auditing processes to mitigate fraudulent activities [64][66].

5月14日晚，小米集团公关部总经理王化在微博发布消息称，"#雷军微博设置关注100天才能评论#这个热搜有点小题大做，雷总 设置关注100天才能评论已经好长一段时间了，主要是为了防水军。" 据悉，今日早些时候，有媒体报道称，小米集团创始人雷军更改微博设置，只允许关注100天以上的粉丝评论，相关话题引发讨 论。 值得注意的是，近期作为造车新势力的小米陷入舆论风波。3月29日，一辆小米SU7标准版发生严重事故，车辆撞击后起火致3 人死亡，引发巨大舆论危机，雷军的社交媒体随后便停更多日，仅在小米15周年当天简短发声，之后又进入"停更"状态，雷军 本人也未再在公开场合露面。 在小米SU7严重车祸风波之后，小米SU7的高端车型小米SU7 Ultra近期又陷入了虚假宣传的争议，面临数百位车主的退车危机。 多名SU7 Ultra准车主认为，其高价选装的碳纤维双风道前舱盖存在虚假宣传问题。5月7日晚间，小米汽车公开致歉并推出补偿 方案，但不少消费者并不认可这一方案，进行无损退车维权。据每日经济新闻报道，目前已有准车主自发组建了维权群，入群 人数已超过400人。 此前的5月10日早间，小米创办人、董事长兼CEO雷军在微博恢复健身 ...

近日，最高法发布的一例"抢票软件不正当竞争案"引发关注。该案原告是一家知名娱乐票务代理公 司，而被告郑某忠在某二手购物平台，售卖针对原告App的抢票"外挂"软件。郑某忠开发的抢票软件通 过技术手段模拟人工操作，可以提高订单信息的填写速度，并可在短时间内重复提交，增加了在原告平 台抢票成功的概率。这起案件被认为是全国首例认定抢票软件构成不正当竞争的判例。 抢票"外挂"软件抢到了法律的铁板上，既抢出了"不正当竞争"的法律责任，也抢出了法律教训。这 起案件不仅厘清了抢票"外挂"行为的违法性质和危害，让售卖抢票"外挂"软件的商家付出了法律代价， 对抢票黑灰产业链具有普遍的警示意义，对受抢票"外挂"软件侵扰的售票主体则有维权示范意义。 该案的法律意义已经超出了个案范畴，对遏制更大范围的抢票作弊乱象具有启发价值和思考价值。 遏制抢票作弊乱象，既需要相关售票主体在技术层面提升反作弊能力，完善反作弊机制，堵住程序漏 洞，也需要售票主体在法律层面找准维权切入点，用好反不正当竞争这一法律武器。 其实，被抢票软件侵权的售票主体有两条主要的维权路径可走：一是可以向法院起诉售卖抢票软件 的商家，由法院依据法律和事实认定商家的不正当竞争 ...