Some Consumers Want To Complain About Dangdang's Repeated Dishonesty.

Recently, Dangdang The introduction of "1 men's Cleanser" was suddenly cancelled after being Smad. Order Many consumers questioned. In this regard, Dangdang CEO Li Guoqing micro-blog "cry for mercy", said Dangdang refund is due to limited promotional products, has marked "first come first served, giving up until", will naturally control the order according to the number of commodities. However, consumers believe that Dangdang's move is not honest and has the meaning of playing with consumers. Reporters learned yesterday that some consumers want to unite to safeguard their rights. Some consumers believe that when Dangdang launched the event, it did not indicate the number of promotional items, nor did the website set the upper limit on the number of goods, so that the quota could be automatically terminated. Yesterday, Zhao Ying, the chief legal counsel of China Internet legal network, pointed out in an interview with reporters that Dangdang cancelled its order on the grounds of shortage and shortage of stock.

Yesterday, Zhao Zhanling, a lawyer, told reporters that at least four consumers had consulted and sued Dangdang for safeguarding their rights and initially planned to sue Dangdang. According to its introduction, one of the consumers from Beijing bought 2000 orders after Dangdang launched a 0.1 yuan men's Cleanser. Another consumer from Shenyang also bought 1000 orders, but eventually the system was cancelled. He believes that Dangdang's "gift" banner is clearly a requirement to circumvent the sale contract.

Online shopping market False Marketing The act of "breaking faith" on the grounds of shortage and wrong price often happens. Taking Dangdang network as an example, including the "Oolong" incident, four similar incidents have occurred this year, after which the price of Adidas shoes was 1 yuan, the Samsung mobile phone was 110 yuan wrong, and the original price of 1800 yuan was wrongly linked to 50 yuan. A few days ago, the Beijing Chaoyang industrial and commercial sub Bureau disclosed that all Tissot samples of the Gao Peng network were all counterfeit goods. At present, at least 100 netizens who have purchased fake watches are ready to safeguard their rights through legal channels. Gao Peng's fake table reflects the integrity crisis of the entire electricity supplier and online seller.

In the online shopping market, many sellers and e-commerce providers have launched low price marketing methods to attract consumers. However, "low price" marketing activities, when consumers are mad, businesses have to cancel orders in the guise of shortage and shortage of stock. Yesterday, Zhao Zhanling, chief legal adviser of China Internet legal network, told reporters, "in fact, in these marketing activities, there are very few or even no goods sold by businesses. This kind of behavior is suspected of false propaganda and fraud." The person pointed out that in the face of the above businesses, consumers are often very difficult to safeguard their rights, "because we can not prove whether businesses have stock or inventory, is it really out of stock?"

It is reported that in the electricity supplier's user agreement, generally will write "if goods shortage electricity supplier has the power to cancel the order" the Ordinance, Zhao lawyer thinks, should respond to the electricity supplier's above bad behavior, protects the consumer to have two methods, first, can determine the electricity supplier's this regulation as the overlord clause, has no legal effect. He thinks this is possible, because the information out of the electricity supplier is opaque and vague for consumers. Whether it is out of stock or not can only be known by the electricity supplier or seller himself. Moreover, most of the low-priced goods launched by businessmen are not unique commodities, but can be replenished again. The second method is to conduct repeated acts of dishonesty. Besides civil liability, it should also give certain administrative responsibilities to the legislation, link the dishonest behavior with qualification and preferential policies, and establish a good faith mechanism through legislation.