Core Viewpoint - The case involves a consumer complaint against Taiping Bird for allegedly misrepresenting an old polo shirt as a new model, raising concerns about false advertising and consumer rights [1][3][13] Group 1: Consumer Complaint Details - A consumer named Mr. Zhou purchased a polo shirt labeled as a "new model" from Taiping Bird's official flagship store but found it identical to a shirt he bought the previous year [1][3] - Mr. Zhou claims that the labeling of the shirt as a new model misled him, leading him to demand a refund and compensation, which was denied by the company [1][8] - The customer service of Taiping Bird acknowledged that the shirt was indeed an old model but justified the "new" label by stating it was a new production batch for 2025 [10][12] Group 2: Company Response and Justification - Taiping Bird's customer service explained that the shirt was marked as a new model due to improvements in fabric or because it was newly produced, despite being an old design [10][12] - The company maintained that the product description as a "summer new model" was accurate based on its production year, leading to confusion regarding the distinction between design and production year [10][12] Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicated that advertising must not contain false or misleading content, and misrepresenting an old product as new could violate consumer protection laws [13] - According to Chinese consumer protection laws, if fraud is established, consumers are entitled to triple the amount of their purchase as compensation [13]