On April 2nd of last year, Alex purchased an iPhone 5 from a Taobao store for the price of 2979.63 yuan. Upon receiving the phone, he found that the information registered for this phone through its serial number did not match the information provided by the seller on Taobao.
On April 15th, he requested a refund from the seller citing discrepancies in the registered information, but the request was denied. The seller insisted that Alex must return the phone first. On the same day, Alex applied for Taobao’s intervention, but the seller continued to refuse a refund without the return of the phone.
On April 22nd, after Taobao intervened, it was determined that Alex needed to return the phone for a refund. However, Alex disagreed. He sent the phone to China Inspection and Certification Group Beijing Co., Ltd. (referred to as Zhongjian Company) for inspection. He requested Taobao and the seller to wait for the inspection report before proceeding with the legal refund process.
On April 29th, Taobao’s trading system automatically closed the refund system due to the buyer exceeding the return deadline, and the payment of 2979.63 yuan in the system was transferred to the seller.
On May 6th, Zhongjian Company completed the inspection and issued a report confirming that the inspected phone was a refurbished device. At this point, Alex’s payment had already been transferred to the seller’s account. Therefore, based on the inspection report, Alex again requested Taobao’s intervention, asking the seller to comply with the new Consumer Rights Law and provide a threefold refund. However, the seller still insisted that Alex must return the product before receiving a refund.
Taobao claimed that, despite the evidence provided by Alex, they supported his request for a return and refund. However, due to the seller’s lack of cooperation in after-sales service, Taobao could not recover the losses for Alex. Therefore, Taobao could only impose a penalty on the seller’s account for “misrepresentation.”
Frustrated, Alex had no choice but to file a lawsuit against Taobao, seeking triple compensation. The court found that although Taobao took some measures after learning that Alex had purchased a refurbished device, these measures were insufficient to protect the rights of the victimized consumer, Alex.
Regarding Alex’s demand for Taobao to pay triple compensation, the court ruled that the seller’s deposit on Taobao did not reach the amount of triple compensation requested by Alex. Therefore, the court did not support Alex’s request for Taobao to pay triple punitive damages.
Article 44 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the liability of network trading platform providers (like Taobao )to consumers is limited to three situations:
1. If they cannot provide the true name, address, and valid contact information of the seller or service provider, consumers can demand compensation from the platform provider;
2. If the platform provider makes promises that are more favorable to consumers, they must fulfill those promises;
3. If the platform provider knowingly or should have known that the seller or service provider is using its platform to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and fails to take necessary measures, they shall bear joint and several liability with the seller or service provider.
In this case, Alex purchased a counterfeit phone, and Taobao’s requirement for him to return the counterfeit product before refunding it constitutes an unreasonable and biased provision in favor of the seller. Taobao did not continue to withhold the payment under the circumstances, which constitutes a failure to take necessary measures and directly led to the consumer not receiving a refund. Therefore, it complies with Article 44, Paragraph 3 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and such a judgment in favor of Alex was made.
