The seven day no reason return policy has been rejected, promised discounts have been cancelled, and unconditional refunds for concert tickets have been blocked... Online consumption is fast and convenient, but there are also many hidden pitfalls that are difficult to prevent. On the 16th, the Supreme People's Court released 5 typical civil cases of online consumption, warning businesses to operate with integrity and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in accordance with the law. Is online shopping 'seven day no reason return' not supported? Hu bought a women's handbag online, but the store page showed that the handbag does not support a seven day no reason return. Hu applied for an unconditional return within seven days after receiving the goods, but was rejected by the store owner Han. Hu sued to the court, requesting that Han be held responsible for the return and refund of goods. The trial court held that although Han indicated in the product details that he did not support a seven day no reason return, he did not reasonably explain that the nature of the handbag was not suitable for return, nor did he provide evidence to prove that applying a seven day no reason return would significantly reduce the value of the product or cause significant losses to the operator. The final verdict is that Han will refund the purchase price, while Hu will return the handbag. This case also reminds businesses that although operators can legally agree with consumers not to apply the seven day no reason return policy, they cannot arbitrarily expand the scope, allowing consumers to "dare to consume", "be willing to consume", and "consume with confidence". After payment, there is no discount. Who the final say the "limited time discount"? In one case, a furniture company launched a mattress promotion, with the rule that a deposit would be paid starting at 20:00 on a certain day, and the top 50 who paid the deposit would enjoy a 50% discount. But in fact, the company began accepting deposit payments at 19:33 on the same day. Zhang paid a deposit of 100 yuan at 19:40 and also sent a screenshot to the customer service staff showing that there were 15 people scheduled at that time. The customer service informed Zhang that there was a chance to enjoy a half price discount, and Zhang paid the final payment of the order. However, Zhang was not included in the promotional list released by the company afterwards, and it was claimed that Zhang did not place an order during the promotional period, which did not meet the promotional conditions. The court held that Zhang informed the customer service personnel immediately after paying the deposit, and the customer service personnel did not point out that the payment time did not comply with the promotion rules, and stated that Zhang had the opportunity to enjoy the discount. If the customer service representative points out that Zhang's payment of the deposit does not comply with the rules when informed, Zhang can cancel the order first and pay the deposit after 20:00, thereby facilitating compliance with the preferential conditions. Furniture companies should bear corresponding responsibilities for misleading behavior in promotional activities. The court ruled that the company will refund half of the price to Zhang. Online shopping for concert tickets, agreed upon unconditional refund but only limited to one refund? Fang purchased 2 concert tickets online on a certain ticketing platform at the same time. The ticket purchase page states that unconditional refunds can be processed within 48 hours after purchase. During the sales phase, the same ticket purchaser and account only have the right to one refund. After one refund occurs, if a ticket for the same performance is purchased again, it cannot be refunded. Due to a change in itinerary, Fang applied for a refund from the platform, but one ticket was successfully refunded while the other was refused. After multiple requests from Fang, the platform only refunded 80% of the second ticket payment to Fang. The court believes that the ticket involved in the case was not repurchased by Fang after he refunded the ticket, and the platform cannot refuse to fully refund the ticket price to Fang based on the above terms. For the refund rules, a more favorable explanation should be given to Fang. The court ruled that the platform will refund the remaining 20% of the ticket price to Fang. This case reminds operators that when formulating refund rules for concert tickets and other tickets, they should be clear and explicit to prevent ambiguity. When there are multiple interpretations of the refund rules formulated by the operator, a favorable interpretation should be made to fully protect consumers' right to know and independent choice. Meanwhile, typical cases also involve fraudulent behavior by operators in live streaming marketing and excessive collection of personal information by network service providers. The Supreme People's Court stated that the people's courts will prudently explore and carefully summarize the trends and laws of changes in online consumption, support the expansion of online consumption with legal thinking and methods, and provide strong judicial guarantees for high-quality development. (New Society)