The "counterattack" started! The seller sued the platform after being "only refunded" and won a great victory

Cross-border e-commerce sellers have suffered from “refund only” for a long time!

The original intention of “refund only” was to facilitate sellers while protecting the rights of consumers, but it has gradually become a means for e-commerce platforms to win users and for criminals to seek profits.

Take the US market as an example. Almost all mainstream e-commerce platforms provide "refund only" services. According to sellers' practices, the "refund only" conditions of these platforms are quite loose . Based on this, many tutorials teaching people to "refund only" on major e-commerce platforms are everywhere abroad, and some organizations have even made millions of dollars in profits from this.

Under these operations, the sellers are the ones who suffer the most: not only do they lose their products, but they also have to pay for logistics. The loss of profits is like "adding insult to injury."

In response to this, most sellers chose to "swallow their anger in silence" or post their experiences online to complain with everyone, but few sellers took up the "weapon" of the law to protect their legitimate rights and interests .

In the minds of many sellers, this kind of "refund only" lawsuit can only sue the buyer. But for cross-border sellers, the cost of suing buyers across borders is much higher than "refund only", so the option of "suing" is basically not among the sellers' choices.

However, there is one party that has been overlooked, and that is the maker of the "refund only" policy - the e-commerce platform .

Recently, a seller took an e-commerce platform to court because of the "refund only" policy. During the online trial, the judge asked the defendant platform, "Which legal provision did you base your "refund only" policy on?" Once this question was asked, the direction of the lawsuit was clear. After a few seconds of silence, the platform agent only gave the answer that "it was implemented in accordance with Article X and Regulation X of the platform."

According to what the seller shared, generally speaking, as long as the lawsuit against the platform is successfully filed and the evidence provided by the seller is solid, the seller may be able to get compensation in the pre-trial mediation stage.

The seller was brought to court this time (one online and one offline) because the 20 or so orders involved in the lawsuit were in different scenarios (including 6 refund-only orders). Although the case was brought to court, the platform's legal department said that it would pay most of the money sued by the seller. Currently, the seller has received the compensation.

According to the sellers, if a store encounters "refund only" and plans to sue the platform, it needs to collect relevant evidence in advance, including but not limited to:

1. Order screenshot: must include the complete order number;

2. Transaction records: only the refund amount corresponding to the order number;

3. Logistics order number: including the receipt details of the order number;

4. Chat records with buyers: This can include asking the seller why they only want a refund;

5. After-sales and complaint details, etc.: such as details of platform intervention and payment records in orders where the platform agrees to settle;

In fact, another reason why some sellers do not resort to legal action is to consider the time cost. However , according to the experience shared by this seller, the entire litigation time actually only took a few months, rather than the rumored "several years in line". It is reported that some sellers have recovered some of the losses caused by "refund only" through the same method, and one of them received compensation of 41,000 yuan.

Seller

E-commerce platform

Refund only