IT Home November 26 news, according to the Beijing Internet Court Cash back "card? Mr. Liu also received the "praise cashback" card of the merchant, and believed that there was a praise from the "fictional" praise to the court.
Mr. Liu browses a product through the e-commerce platform. Seeing the commentary is praised, if the tide is purchased, it is seriously not worthy of physical objects and commodity promotion pages after receiving the goods. There is also a small sheet of paper in the package. He has written a few big words "praise cash back". Mr. Liu immediately contact customer service. The cash back of 5 yuan can be obtained according to the evaluation provided by the graphic provided. Mr. Liu suddenly realized that the merchants have fraudulent behaviors, and they resorted to the court to the court, requiring it to return their shopping funds and advocated triple punishment.
The defendant argued that the propaganda pictures in the commodity promotion page are store physical products, but they have taken certain professional shooting techniques without fraud. "Request Cashback" is encouragement as a cash reward, does not force consumers to conduct praise, and the evaluation content is voluntary after consumers.
The court held
The composition of fraud must have the following four conditions: First, fraud, the second is fraud, the third is caused by fraud, and the fourth is the meaning of the mistake. In this case, the praised content and photos provided to the plaintiff submitted by the plaintiff submitted to the customer service, which can be clearly seen that the text describes part of the content, statement, and the artistic example. The shooting technique is basically the same, thereby improving the comments in the commodity promotion page. The defendant uses the "praise cash back" to induce consumers with its preparation pictures and text published praise in the comment area, and to mislead the follow-up consumer's judgment of the quality of the goods involved. Although the defendant argued that the cash reward is only encouraged to have forced, it has affected the authenticity and voluntaryness of the comments to a certain extent by cash reward. The court believes that the defendant is subjectively dealing with fraud, objectively implemented fraud. The plaintiff is based on the "fictional" praise to generate misunderstandings, and then make the meaning of buying goods, there is a causal relationship between the fraudulent behavior of the merchant and its mistakes.
According to Article 55 of the Control Law of the People's Republic of China, the court shall support the returning commodity price of the plaintiff and the payment penalty compensation claims.
Currently, the case decision has taken effect.
Nowadays, online shopping has become one of the ways to buy daily necessities. In order to click quantity, sales, adoption of "praise cash back", the merchant will result in the realism of evaluation, and the consequences of subsequent consumers have misleading. Then constitute fraud, and the weight may constitute an unfair competition for similar operators. Merchants should follow the law, will spend more energy in improving product quality, rather than using "praise cash back" and other speculative behavior. At the same time, remind consumers, maintain basic judgment in online shopping, goods than three, rational consumption.