Core Viewpoint - The rise of malicious returns in the e-commerce sector is causing significant financial strain on businesses, leading to defensive measures like oversized tags that may not effectively resolve the underlying issues [1][5][6]. Group 1: Impact on E-commerce Businesses - E-commerce businesses are facing severe financial losses due to high return rates, with one company reporting a return amount of nearly 400 million yuan against a 5 million yuan inventory for last year's "Double 11" sales [4]. - The costs associated with returns, including warehousing, sorting, and cleaning, can exceed 10 million yuan for companies with annual sales over 100 million yuan [4]. - Malicious returns not only affect businesses but also lead to higher prices for consumers, as companies pass on losses through increased pricing [5]. Group 2: Defensive Measures and Their Limitations - In response to the issue, some businesses have implemented large tags that state "removal affects resale," resulting in a reduction of return rates from 45% to 28% in one case [6]. - However, these measures are often circumvented by consumers, leading to a cycle of increasing costs for businesses, as the production of these tags can consume significant profit margins [7]. - The introduction of password locks has shown some effectiveness, but these too can be easily compromised, indicating that defensive strategies may only provide temporary relief [7]. Group 3: Need for Systemic Solutions - The problem of malicious returns is complex and requires a multifaceted approach, including the establishment of a robust mechanism to identify and manage high-risk return behaviors through data analysis [9]. - Implementing efficient dispute resolution processes with third-party assessments can help clarify responsibilities and reduce the burden on businesses [10]. - A restructured cost mechanism for returns is essential to ensure that compliant consumers benefit while those engaging in malicious returns face higher costs, thus restoring the original intent of the "7-day no-reason return" policy [11].

Core Viewpoint - The issue of "malicious returns" in the e-commerce clothing sector has led to the implementation of oversized tags by merchants as a defensive measure, which has sparked significant discussion and debate [1][2][4] Group 1: Impact on E-commerce Businesses - Malicious returns have caused substantial financial strain on e-commerce businesses, with reports indicating that a company with over 100 million yuan in sales had a net profit of only 2-3 million yuan, while costs related to returns, including warehousing and sorting, reached nearly 10 million yuan [1] - During last year's "Double 11" shopping festival, one e-commerce operator reported a return amount of nearly 4 million yuan out of 5 million yuan in inventory, with shipping insurance costs alone reaching 120,000 yuan [1][2] Group 2: Consumer Consequences - Consumers may face higher prices as businesses pass on losses from malicious returns, and they risk receiving "second-hand new" items due to extended pre-sale periods as merchants wait for returns to finalize orders [2] - The convenience of return processes, such as home pickup and drop-off at stations, has lowered the time cost for consumers, encouraging the behavior of returning items without genuine intent [2] Group 3: Defensive Measures and Their Limitations - Some merchants have adopted oversized tags, which have reportedly reduced return rates significantly; for instance, one store saw a drop from 45% to 28% in return rates after implementing these tags [3] - However, these measures are not foolproof, as some consumers have found ways to circumvent them, such as carefully cutting tags to try on items [4] Group 4: Need for Systemic Solutions - The complexity of the issue necessitates a comprehensive approach to address malicious returns, with suggestions for platforms to develop a robust governance system that includes identifying malicious return patterns through data analysis [5] - Establishing efficient dispute resolution mechanisms and involving third-party assessment for returned items can help clarify responsibilities and reduce the burden on merchants [6] - The original intent of the "7-day no-reason return" policy was to protect consumer rights, and it is crucial for platforms to optimize rules to create a fair trading environment that discourages malicious returns while benefiting compliant consumers [6]

Core Points - The article discusses the ongoing conflict between women's clothing retailers and consumers regarding the increasing size and complexity of clothing tags, which are now seen as a deterrent to returns [2][4][5] - The rise of oversized tags is a response to high return rates and consumer behavior that exploits return policies, leading to a significant shift in the retail landscape [6][15][26] Group 1: Industry Trends - The trend of oversized tags has become a focal point in the women's clothing industry, with tags now being as large as A4 paper and designed to be difficult to remove [6][11] - Manufacturers are innovating with tag designs, including tamper-proof features and even technology like NFC chips, although the latter is not widely adopted due to cost [12][15] - The introduction of these tags is seen as a cost-effective measure for retailers to mitigate losses from returns, with the cost of oversized tags being significantly lower than the potential losses from returned items [26][27] Group 2: Consumer Behavior - Consumers have adapted to the return policies, often purchasing items with the intent to wear them briefly before returning, leading to a culture of "wear and return" [16][23] - This behavior has resulted in a gray market where individuals exploit return policies for profit, further complicating the relationship between retailers and consumers [23][30] - The article highlights instances where consumers have returned items in unsellable conditions, exacerbating the challenges faced by retailers [18][19] Group 3: Retailer Responses - Retailers are increasingly adopting oversized tags as a last line of defense against return fraud, with reports indicating a significant drop in return rates after implementing these tags [26][27] - The cost of oversized tags is justified by retailers when compared to the high costs associated with returns, which can include shipping, restocking, and loss of sale [27][28] - The ongoing "tag war" reflects a broader struggle within the industry to balance consumer rights with the financial viability of retail operations [30][50]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing conflict between women's clothing retailers and consumers, focusing on the trend of oversized tags as a response to high return rates and consumer trust issues in the fashion industry [4][8][22]. Group 1: Industry Trends - The phenomenon of oversized tags in women's clothing has become a significant topic of discussion, with some tags being as large as A4 paper, serving as a deterrent against returns [10][39]. - Retailers are increasingly using these large tags as a "defense mechanism" against consumers who exploit return policies, with some tags designed to be difficult to remove [17][38]. - The introduction of advanced anti-removal technologies, such as adhesive tags and NFC chips, reflects the industry's adaptation to combat return fraud, although the cost of such technologies can be prohibitive for mass-market brands [19][20]. Group 2: Consumer Behavior - The article highlights a shift in consumer behavior, where some individuals treat online shopping as a "try before you buy" experience, leading to a culture of returning items after minimal use [23][30]. - Instances of collective returns by groups, such as students after events, illustrate the growing trend of consumers exploiting return policies, further straining retailers [30][34]. - The dissatisfaction with women's clothing quality has led some consumers to explore men's and children's clothing, finding better fit and quality, which indicates a significant shift in purchasing preferences [60][63]. Group 3: Economic Impact - High return rates have become a financial burden for retailers, with some reporting return rates as high as 75% to 80%, significantly impacting their profitability [37][52]. - The cost of returns, including shipping and handling, can exceed the original sale price of the items, leading to substantial losses for retailers [39][52]. - The implementation of return policies, such as "seven-day no-reason returns," has inadvertently encouraged a culture of return abuse, complicating the financial landscape for retailers [49][51].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal case in which a buyer abused the "7-day no-reason return" policy on an e-commerce platform, leading to a court ruling against the buyer for refunding unreturned goods and compensating the seller for losses incurred [1][7]. Group 1: Case Background - The buyer, referred to as Cai, frequently returned items purchased from a seller, Li, using the "7-day no-reason return" policy, leading to disputes over refunds [2][3]. - Cai made 69 orders totaling 5581.9 yuan and later attempted to return items using the same tracking number for multiple orders, which the seller contested [2][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The seller, Li, provided evidence of Cai's repeated misuse of tracking numbers and the e-commerce platform's warning about potential fraudulent activity [3][4]. - The court found that Cai's actions constituted abuse of the return policy, as he had no genuine intent to purchase the items, and ruled that he must return 48599.13 yuan for unreturned goods [7][8]. Group 3: Implications for E-commerce - The case highlights the need for both sellers and buyers to engage in honest transactions, as misuse of return policies can disrupt market order and lead to legal consequences [9][10]. - Recommendations include improving return verification processes on e-commerce platforms and establishing credit scoring systems to monitor consumer behavior [10][11].

E-commerce Platform Ethics & User Behavior - E-commerce platforms' "7-day no reason return" policy hinges on the condition that the product doesn't affect secondary sales, but this boundary is often ambiguous [1] - Some believe that the current e-commerce environment is unethical, leading to a situation where discerning customers become victims [2] - In an unethical environment, some customers choose to be more selective to avoid being victimized, while refusing to exploit the "7-day no reason return" policy [3] - Some customers may choose to abuse platform rules to protect their own experience, especially against self-operated platforms [4] Impact on Business & Marketing - An ethical environment would lead to low-frequency usage, excellent user experience, careful handling of returns by platforms and merchants, and a reasonable official second-hand market [2] - Marketing strategies are initiated and benefited by platforms/brands [2] - Platforms set the rules, and customers should not bear the negative consequences [4]