Workflow
北京空总皮肤科乳霜膏五件套
icon
Search documents
网售假冒儿研所三件套不断:身份证即开店,器械资质就能卖,平台审核遭系统性突破
Bei Jing Shang Bao· 2025-11-20 04:24
Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing issue of counterfeit products, specifically a fake eczema treatment sold on the Taobao platform, revealing systemic failures in the platform's regulatory mechanisms and the ease with which sellers can evade scrutiny [1][12]. Group 1: Personal Store Issues - Personal stores on Taobao can be easily registered using just an ID, allowing sellers to operate with minimal oversight, which complicates consumer protection efforts [2][6]. - Consumers like Zhao Jing face significant challenges in obtaining refunds and pursuing further action against sellers, as personal stores lack formal business licenses [2][6]. - The use of misleading store names, such as "国箹佳乐大箹房," which closely resembles legitimate pharmacy names, further confuses consumers and helps sellers bypass regulatory checks [4][6]. Group 2: Corporate Store Misuse - Some corporate stores exploit their legitimate status to sell counterfeit products, misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing from reputable sources [7][9]. - The "凌芳旗舰店," a corporate store, has a significant following and sales volume but only possesses minimal medical-related qualifications, which do not align with the products being sold [7][9]. - Product descriptions and parameters in these stores often contain serious inaccuracies, such as misclassifying products or using incorrect registration numbers, which should have been caught during the platform's review process [9][11]. Group 3: Systemic Regulatory Failures - The article points out a significant gap between the platform's qualification checks and the actual products being sold, leading to a lack of effective oversight [12][14]. - The platform's response to consumer complaints is often limited to issuing refunds or shutting down individual stores, failing to address the broader issue of counterfeit sales [14][15]. - Legal experts suggest that e-commerce platforms could be held liable for not taking necessary actions against sellers of counterfeit goods, emphasizing the need for consumers to retain evidence when pursuing claims [14].