Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released five typical civil cases related to online consumer issues, focusing on live marketing fraud, seven-day no-reason return disputes, misleading promotional rules, ambiguous standard terms, and excessive personal information collection [1][6] - In the live marketing sector, a case highlighted false advertising where a merchant misrepresented the material of a product, leading to a court ruling that enforced the merchant's commitment to a "tenfold compensation" promise [3] - The seven-day no-reason return policy was reinforced in a case where a consumer was denied a return; the court ruled that merchants cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of "non-returnable" items, thus protecting consumer rights [3] Group 2 - The fairness and transparency of promotional rules were scrutinized in a case where a furniture company misled consumers regarding a discount offer, resulting in a court ruling that mandated the return of half the payment to the consumer [5] - In a ticket refund dispute, the court emphasized that ambiguous terms should be interpreted in favor of consumers, leading to a ruling that required a ticketing platform to refund the remaining ticket price [5] - The judicial ruling on excessive personal information collection highlighted that an app's collection practices exceeded necessary limits, resulting in a court order for the deletion of user information and compensation for damages [5][6] Group 3 - The release of these typical cases aims to clarify online consumer rules, sanction illegal behaviors of operators, and guide consumers in protecting their rights [6] - The judicial authority will continue to monitor new issues in online consumption to support the healthy development of the digital economy and enhance consumer confidence [6]

Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of online consumption necessitates improvements in consumer protection and the regulation of online marketing practices, particularly in live-streaming sales and promotional activities [1][2][3]. Group 1: Online Retail Growth - In 2024, China's online retail sales reached 15,522.5 billion yuan, a 7.2% increase from the previous year, with physical goods accounting for 13,081.6 billion yuan, growing by 6.5% and representing 26.8% of total retail sales [1]. - Online consumption has become a significant method for consumers, highlighting the need for enhanced consumer rights protection [1]. Group 2: Legal Cases in Online Marketing - A case involving a seller who misrepresented the material of a product during a live-stream led to a court ruling that the seller must honor a "fake one pays ten" guarantee, emphasizing the importance of truthful advertising in live-streaming [2][3]. - Another case highlighted the responsibilities of businesses during promotional activities, where misleading information led to a ruling against a furniture company for not properly informing a customer about promotional conditions [4]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Return Policies - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is a critical consumer right in online shopping, with legal backing to ensure its enforcement [5][6]. - Courts have ruled against sellers who attempt to deny this right through vague or misleading terms, reinforcing the legal obligation to allow returns unless explicitly justified [6][7]. Group 4: Privacy and Data Protection - Issues surrounding privacy policies in apps, including forced consent and excessive data collection, have raised significant legal concerns, leading to court rulings that protect consumer rights against overreach by service providers [9][10][11]. - A recent case resulted in a ruling that a company must delete unlawfully collected personal information and compensate the consumer, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal data rights [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of online consumption has raised higher demands for improving consumption models, enhancing consumption efficiency, and protecting consumer rights [2] Group 1: Online Consumption and Consumer Rights - Online shopping has become a significant way for consumers, emphasizing the need for trust and comfort in transactions [2] - The Supreme People's Court has released typical civil cases related to online consumption to address new issues and respond to public concerns [2] Group 2: Case Study on Live Streaming Marketing - A case involved a seller who misrepresented the material of a bracelet during a live stream, leading to a court ruling that the seller must honor a "fake compensation ten times" promise, resulting in a compensation of 10,000 yuan [3][4] - The ruling highlights the importance of accountability in live streaming marketing, where consumer trust is heavily influenced by the host's claims [4] Group 3: Ticket Purchase and Refund Policies - A case regarding concert ticket refunds revealed ambiguities in refund rules, where a consumer was partially refunded despite the platform's unclear terms [6][7] - The court ruled in favor of the consumer, emphasizing that ambiguous terms should be interpreted in a way that protects consumer rights [6][7] Group 4: Return Policies for Online Purchases - A case involving a handbag purchase showed that a seller's refusal to accept a return based on unclear terms was deemed invalid, leading to a full refund for the consumer [8][9] - The ruling reinforced the seven-day no-reason return policy, ensuring consumers can make purchases with confidence [9]

网购"七天无理由退货"，说不支持就不支持？ 胡某在网上买了一款女士手提包，购买时店铺页面显示该手提包不支持七日无理由退货。胡某收货后于 七日内申请无理由退货，被店家韩某拒绝。胡某诉至法院，请求判令韩某承担退货退款责任。 审理法院认为，虽然韩某在商品详情标注了不支持七日无理由退货，但并未合理说明该手提包性质属于 不宜退货的理由，也未举证证明适用七日无理由退货会导致商品价值的大幅度贬损或给经营者造成重大 损失。最终判决韩某退还货款，同时胡某退还该手提包。 这个案子也提醒商家，虽然经营者可以依法与消费者约定不适用七日无理由退货，但不得任意扩大范 围，让消费者"敢消费""愿消费""放心消费"。 七天无理由退货被拒、承诺的优惠说没就没、演唱会门票无条件退票受阻……网络消费快捷方便，也暗 藏不少令人防不胜防的"坑"。最高人民法院16日发布5件网络消费民事典型案例，警示商家诚信经营， 依法维护消费者合法权益。 付款后翻脸不给打折，"限时优惠"谁说了算？ 一起案例中，某家具公司开展床垫促销，规则为某日20时开始付定金，前50名付定金者享受半价优惠。 但实际上，该公司当日19时33分就开始接受定金支付。 张某于19时40分支付 ...

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court emphasized that consumers purchasing goods online often rely on the descriptions and displays provided by sellers, as they cannot physically experience the products [2] - The case involved a dispute where the seller's refusal to allow a seven-day no-reason return was deemed unreasonable, as the product in question did not fall under the category of items unsuitable for return [1][2] - The ruling reinforces consumer rights by upholding the seven-day no-reason return policy, which is designed to enhance consumer confidence and security in online shopping [2] Group 2 - The court highlighted that while sellers can agree with consumers to exclude the seven-day return policy for certain items, they cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of such exclusions [2] - The judgment mandates the seller to refund the purchase price while the consumer returns the handbag, illustrating the enforcement of consumer protection laws [1]