Online Shopping Legislation Or Speed Up The Implementation Of "Seven Days No Reason To Return" Provisions

Behind the "P > government department interview, the newly revised" Consumer Rights Protection Act "has been promulgated and implemented. The application scope and specific implementation standards of the twenty-fifth" seven days no reason to return "rule are not clear, and there are different understandings, resulting in the return of goods to become a hot spot for consumer complaints.

A survey conducted earlier showed that 95% of netizens were "not satisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the implementation of the "new consumer law" on the seven day without any reason to return the goods.

< /p >

< p > experts say that at present, special legislation for e-commerce has not yet been promulgated. With the increase of the share of electricity providers in the retail market and the increasing number of lawsuits related to online shopping, the legislation of electric power providers will be forced to accelerate the time of official release.

< /p >

< p > < strong > legislation lagged behind < /strong > < /p >

< p > "within seven days, there is no reason why" a href= "http:// www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > return < /a > is different from the "three package" return rule, which protects consumers' "right to go back".

Online shopping is an online shopping, can not see the real goods, so after seeing the object, consumers can not be satisfied with the return rule can better protect the interests of consumers.

In fact, due to the fact that the new regulations do not clearly define the scope of application and the specific implementation standards, this powerful weapon to protect online shopping is difficult to play the role of protection.

< /p >

Similar to the controversy caused by "P" and "no reason to return within seven days", the first typical legal case of the ten major electricity suppliers in China's first electronic commerce legal report "2013-2014 China's e-commerce legal report" released in July 9th is related to the unclear definition of law or the lag of legal provisions.

< /p >

< p > the typical cases of the ten major electricity suppliers include the case of "QQ", the case of the resignation of a stewardess, the case of the overseas purchasing and smuggling case, the online shopping consumer rights lawsuit, the Tmall seller's "fake one lost ten thousand" case, the Dangdang sales failed to meet the standard of health care products being sentenced to ten times the compensation case, the public comment network reported that Baidu's infringement and unfair competition claims amounted to 90 million cases, the Amazon China's "delete order case" defeat, the first case of bitcoin trading platform fraud, the "Pacific direct purchase network" pyramid selling case, Tmall, brewmaster net and so on, and so on well-known electric business selling fake liquor "Lai Mao" case, perfect sue Wo Wo Group's infringement of registered trademark exclusive right claim 550 thousand yuan case and so on.

< /p >

< p > the case of "Dangdang sales is not up to standard health care products is sentenced to ten times compensation" as a typical case of the sale of non-standard food by the electricity supplier. Yao Xiaojuan, a research fellow of the China Electronic Commerce Research Center and lawyer of Zhejiang Tian Bao law firm, believes that the food safety law stipulates that "the food that does not meet the safety standard" requires the plaintiff to give evidence.

In general, consumers do not have the ability to provide evidence. Even in some cases, manufacturers can issue fake certificates, and they can not believe that fakes are not in line with food safety standards.

In this case, the conclusion of the business sector has a great effect on the referee.

In addition, Dangdang staff in the report admitted that they did not examine the qualification materials of the manufacturer when they bought the goods, which was also an important factor affecting the judges' subjective judgment.

< /p >

< p > < < a href= > http:// > www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp > consumer > /a > the burden of proof increases the difficulty of protecting consumers' online shopping rights. Lawyers believe that the law should be more inclined to protect consumers who are disadvantaged in online shopping.

For example, in the Amazon China, "delete orders", the court decided that consumers win the lawsuit.

Zhang Yanlai, a lawyer at Zhejiang Golden Road office, believes that the "conditions of use" published by Amazon website is that only the email sent by the website is sent to confirm the sales contract.

In this case, the court made a decision to support the consumer's petition, which is an improvement.

< /p >

< p > < strong > problem is a href= "http:// www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > legislation < /a > /strong > /p >

< p > with the newly revised "consumer protection law" and "network paction management measures" and other targeted laws, like the "online shopping regret right", many provisions have become the protection of e-commerce enterprises and consumer pactions, and play a positive role in regulating the electricity trading market.

< /p >

< p > lawyer Zhang Yanlai believes that the new consumer protection law has given special protection to online shopping consumers. This is the inevitable result of the development of China's electricity supplier to a certain extent. At the same time, in the long run, it is also conducive to enhancing consumer's online shopping confidence and restricting the behavior of Internet sellers.

Of course, rights always have boundaries. The right to regret is not limited. In the new consumer law, there are several special situations that do not apply to "regret right". In addition, it is worth noting that consumers exercise "regret right" to meet the requirements of "returned goods should be intact" and the conditions for freight.

< /p >

< p > but because there are still some imperfections in the legislation, there are still many doubts in the actual operation, especially whether certain commodities are applicable to no reason to return goods and who should bear the freight return.

It also requires China to speed up the construction of the legislative system in the emerging field of online shopping.

< /p >

< p > December 27, 2013, the finance and Economic Commission of the National People's Congress convened the first draft plenary session of the e-commerce law drafting group, and for the first time delineated the "timetable" of China's electricity supplier legislation, that is, from the drafting group to December 2014, conducting thematic research and research projects and completing research reports, forming a legislative outline.

From January 2015 to June 2016, we drafted and completed the drafting of the draft law.

< /p >

< p > from time to time, the legislative process is getting more and more serious with the rapid development of online shopping market, and the emergence of these problems will push the legislature to speed up the process of time.

Before the whole legal system has been set up, there have been laws and regulations for various sectors or chain of online shopping. For example, in the courier link, there are normative policies such as violence sorting, express information leakage, prohibited goods delivery, slow delivery, damage compensation and so on.

< /p >

< p > for this reason, the State Post Office has promulgated two regulations for the protection of the industry in a series of "Regulations on the management of undeliverable and unreturned mail" and "Regulations on the safety management of personal information for delivery users".

In May 28th this year, the State Food and Drug Administration issued the "Internet food and drug business supervision and management measures (Draft)", the first time to open up the sale of prescription drugs in the electricity supplier channel.

< /p >