Summary of the Core Content
This news article discusses how the "refund-only" policy on e-commerce platforms has been misused by malicious actors, turning it into a tool for people to obtain goods for free, harming both merchants and delivery drivers. From large amounts of money being refunded without cause, to claims that deliveries were not received after consumption, to fraudulently claiming product defects to get refunds, these absurd incidents are rooted in issues such as competitive platform policies, lax reviews, and low costs of violations. Although regulatory authorities have taken action to rectify the situation, merchants and drivers are still suffering during the transition period, and a multi-faceted approach is needed to eliminate this problem.
1. How Did "Refund-Only" Become a Problem?
The "refund-only" policy was initially introduced by Pinduoduo in 2021 with the aim of helping consumers quickly protect their rights—for example, in cases where goods were damaged or lost and could not be returned, allowing for a direct refund without the need to return the product, thus reducing the cost of rights protection. However, other platforms later adopted this policy to attract users, sometimes even being more generous than Pinduoduo. Over time, it has become a tool for competition, where the platform uses merchants' money to please buyers, creating a situation where "the more lenient the policy is towards buyers, the more traffic the platform gets." For instance, if a merchant does not handle a refund request in time, the platform automatically refunds the money to the buyer without verifying the facts; buyers can even pass a review with a fake image, showing no effort to verify the situation. This is far from protecting consumers; it actually puts merchants in a disadvantageous position.
2. How Bad Are the Merchants and Drivers Who Are Being Exploited?
Several cases in the news are particularly frustrating:
- Merchant Ms. Yang: Her goods worth 23,600 yuan were claimed not to have been received by the buyer (although they had already been delivered), and the platform automatically refunded the money. She traveled 18 hours by train across provinces to recover the funds, incurring additional expenses for travel and lost wages, and felt so stressed that she considered filing a lawsuit.
- Delivery Driver: After delivering food, he was reported by a female white-collar worker who claimed the delivery was not made. The driver's income depends entirely on orders, and such complaints could cost him his job; netizens described this as a serious issue.
- Mr. Cheng, Who Sells Durians: His 190 yuan worth of durians were refunded after the buyer submitted a fake image claiming they were moldy. He spent 5,000 yuan and traveled 1,600 kilometers to prove that the goods were not returned, only to receive threats of violence. Both merchants and buyers are paying a much higher price than the value of the goods.
These cases are not isolated incidents; there have been instances of people placing malicious orders 2700 times to defraud millions in payments, or using multiple accounts to scam 54,000 yuan. A "fake order placement-refund-sales" ecosystem has even emerged, with merchants and drivers being the primary victims.
3. Why Do People Dare to Act So Aggressively?
There are three main reasons why such malicious behavior is prevalent:
1. Lax Platform Reviews: Platforms act as both judges and participants in the process, turning a blind eye to buyers' requests for refunds, especially if they provide fake images or the merchant does not respond within 24 hours.
2. Low Costs of Violation: The penalties for fraud are minimal—7 days in detention for 190 yuan or just 1.5 years in prison for millions in fraud, and users can simply create new accounts to continue committing crimes. The potential gains outweigh the risks.
3. Advances in AI Technology: AI is now capable of creating highly realistic fake images and videos, making it difficult for platforms to detect fraud.
4. Regulatory Authorities and Platforms Are Taking Action, but Not Enough
Fortunately, regulatory bodies have recognized the issue:
- In 2025, platforms like Taobao, JD.com, and Pinduoduo abolished the "refund-only" policy.
- In February 2026, the "Online Transaction Platform Rules Supervision and Management Measures" came into effect, stipulating that platforms cannot force merchants to refund goods without returning them and must ensure merchants have the right to defend themselves.
However, there are still challenges during the transition period: some platforms do not fully implement the new rules, and malicious buyers continue to operate under different accounts. It will take time for the system to be perfected, and merchants and drivers are still facing difficulties.
5. Solving the Problem Requires Collective Efforts
The "refund-only" policy itself is not inherently bad; the problem lies with those who abuse it and the systems that allow such behavior to continue. To address this issue:
- Regulators: They need to enforce the law more strictly, imposing heavier penalties on fraudsters (e.g., adding them to blacklists or banning online purchases).
- Platforms: They must improve their review processes, using AI to detect fraud and giving merchants sufficient time and channels to appeal.
- Consumers: They should understand that taking advantage of systems is a form of fraud and can lead to legal consequences.
- The Judicial System: More severe punishments for large-scale fraudulent refunds are needed to deter future offenses.
In a healthy society, those who follow the rules should not be at a disadvantage compared to those who break them. Only through collaborative efforts can we ensure that "refund-only" policies serve their intended purpose of protecting consumers, rather than becoming a tool for abuse.
(The entire text is written in plain language to make it easy for non-experts to understand the issues and the underlying reasons behind the problems.)