The tactics of online marketing are evolving: how to shop confidently with just your fingertips

Who Should Compensate for “Filter” Breakage in Live Rooms? Can Second-Hand Goods Be Returned Without Reason Within Seven Days? How to Recover Minors’ Recharge and Tips? … On the occasion of the “3.15” International Consumer Rights Day, on March 13, the Hangzhou Intermediate Court and Hangzhou Internet Court jointly released typical cases related to online shopping consumer disputes. [Download Black Cat Complaint App] Recently, the Provincial Consumer Protection Committee released the top ten typical cases of consumer rights protection in 2025, including four related to online consumption.

Typical cases act like a mirror, reflecting new changes and characteristics in consumer disputes, and sketching a “new map” of consumer rights protection—the deepening of digital space consumption traps, more complex tricks, and the need to upgrade consumer rights navigation.

Touchscreen “Buy Buy Buy” New Tricks “Many Many Many”

As the e-commerce capital, Hangzhou has seen continuous growth in online consumer dispute cases over the past three years—by 2025, the first-instance related cases in Hangzhou exceeded 20,000, a fourfold increase compared to 2023.

Behind this significant data increase is a clear feature: a large number of online consumer disputes are shifting scenarios.

The “family members” in live rooms may become “leeks”; what you believe to be genuine recommendations might actually be false endorsements generated by AI technology… Liang Kun, Deputy Head of the Civil Division I of Hangzhou Intermediate Court, said that disputes arising from new consumption scenarios such as live-streamed sales, social e-commerce, same-city instant retail, blind box consumption, smart products, and virtual property have increased significantly, with related cases rising 82% from 2024 to 2025.

Unlike traditional e-commerce where the product mismatch is obvious, the battlefield of online consumer disputes is shifting from “visible” product quality to “invisible” complex games. Through multiple typical cases, it is found that online consumer disputes are evolving into multi-dimensional challenges involving platform rules, new forms of abuse, and complex technological scenarios, often hidden.

Consumer Xiao Gao still remembers the moment he was attracted by a mobile game—an enticing “open treasure chest” ad with a high winning probability that made his mouth water. However, after spending 34,000 yuan to join and repeatedly pressing the open chest button, he realized that the promised probability was just a bait.

In 2025, Xiao Gao prepared to take legal action after complaints went nowhere. Under the full witness of Pujiang County Notary Office, a one-hour, over ten-thousand-times open chest calculation was conducted, revealing an actual winning probability of only 0.36%, nearly ten times less than the advertised probability.

“The game operators sometimes induce consumption by artificially inflating probabilities and have the ability to adjust electronic data at any time,” said a notary from Pujiang County Notary Office. This kind of “probability game” at the digital level often involves covert manipulation, making it difficult to detect.

With the continuous emergence of new online consumption formats, the subjects involved in disputes are becoming more diverse. “For example, in live-streamed sales, the parties involved in litigation may include product sellers, platform operators, streamers, and MCN companies,” Liang Kun said.

Consumer Xiao Zou bought a pair of shoes on a second-hand trading platform, found hidden defects upon receipt, and applied for “seven-day no reason return” on the same day, but was refused by the seller. The seller claimed that the product page had marked “non-returnable if not genuine.”

Can a personal seller be exempt from responsibility by marking “no return or exchange”? “The seller has sold over a thousand pairs of shoes on second-hand platforms in the past four years and explicitly states in the profile ‘large-scale high-priced sneaker recycling,’ which is essentially an e-commerce operator,” said Judge Yu Niquaojie, a member of the Trial Committee of Hangzhou Internet Court. Unlike ordinary users selling idle second-hand goods, if a second-hand goods e-commerce operator does not confirm with consumers that “seven-day no reason return” does not apply, they must bear corresponding legal responsibilities.

Meanwhile, online consumer disputes may also trigger secondary disputes. Consumers’ demands are no longer limited to recovering property losses but extend to multiple dimensions such as personal information rights, algorithmic discrimination, and reputation rights. For example, Mr. Zhu experienced personal information leakage after leaving a negative review about a hotel stay. In 2023, he booked a hotel through an online platform and left a poor review due to bad experience. Two years later, he found that the merchant publicly insulted him in the comment section and disclosed his name and ID number. After mediation, the merchant deleted the post, apologized, and paid 2,500 yuan compensation.

Three Barriers on the Road to Rights Protection

Online shopping pitfalls are like a thorn in the heart. When you want to painfully pull it out, you may find that the real torment has just begun.

On this rights protection journey, there are often three insurmountable barriers.

The first is “difficulty in evidence collection.” “In traditional e-commerce disputes, evidence is relatively fixed, mainly including platform orders, page details, chat records, etc. However, in emerging online consumption scenarios, electronic evidence becomes more complex, including live stream recordings, bullet comments, voice content…” said Zhai Yujia, a judge of Civil Division I of Hangzhou Intermediate Court. Especially for transactions involving original backend data, they are often held by platforms or merchants and may be deleted or tampered with.

“Factory direct, all genuine (natural jadeite), with certificates…” Attracted by the language in the live room, consumer Shen bought 24 pieces of jade for over 14,000 yuan. After receipt, he had the items appraised by an official public testing expert from the platform and found they were all quartz rock with glue dyeing. Furious, Shen sued the merchant.

To win the case, Shen also sent some items to the National Jade and Jewelry Quality Inspection Center (Henan) and Henan Provincial Product Quality Inspection and Testing Institute for appraisal, with consistent results. The court ruled that the merchant committed fraud, requiring a refund and triple compensation.

“Consumer fraud is common in live-streamed sales, especially in categories like jewelry, electronics, home appliances, alcohol, and bags,” said Judge Zhai Yujia. She noted that for categories like alcohol and bags, it is often difficult for consumers to obtain official appraisal results when defects are found.

After passing the evidence challenge, “communication difficulty” often arises. The platform’s customer service often uses “layered” transfers, busy AI chatbots, and the classic phrase “We will verify as soon as possible,” turning rights protection into a tug-of-war. Zhai Yujia said many consumers are dissatisfied with the platform’s resolution mechanisms, “sometimes only told the result without understanding the process.” Additionally, since merchants come from all over the country, disputes require remote regulatory agencies to handle, which is not very convenient.

Finally, “difficulty in claiming compensation” can occur. “In platform economy, the platform’s dispute resolution ability is limited, mostly requiring merchants to return goods and refunds. If consumers want to obtain more than three times punitive damages, they often have to go to court,” said Yu Niquaojie. Even with solid evidence, cumbersome procedures and high time costs discourage many consumers.

Recently, a new form of consumer fraud has increased the difficulty of claims. Yu Niquaojie found that some merchants register on platforms using others’ ID or business information, with payments transferred to the actual operator’s account. When consumers discover “substandard” behaviors and disputes arise, they can only trace the registration information. However, both the consumer and the registrant may be victims.

How Digital Intelligence Empowers

In response to new challenges in online consumer disputes, Zhejiang, as a digital economy hub, is exploring an innovative path of digital intelligence empowerment.

Rights protection has become more convenient. In Hangzhou, relying on internet litigation platforms, “virtual shared courts” have quietly been established, forming an interconnected governance network. The Internet Dispute Resolution Center acts as a smart hub, deeply integrating multi-party dispute resolution and online litigation services, allowing consumer demands to be “accepted in one stop,” “resolved in one package,” and “handled across the entire chain.”

Complaints are more effective. The Hangzhou Consumer Protection Committee launched the AI digital person “Hang Xiao Xiao,” which has upgraded rights protection services from “offline scheduling” to “online instant response”; China Telecom Zhejiang uses digital intelligence to achieve 24/7 standardized handling, reducing complaints by 38% year-on-year. This year, Zhejiang will also launch “one-click reconciliation” and “AI mediation” applications, aiming to cover over 50,000 business entities and resolve more than 60% of consumer disputes online.

With the development of new technologies, models, and formats, how can the online consumption environment be further optimized?

Cao Lei, member of the Provincial Consumer Rights Protection Professional Committee and director of the E-commerce Research Center of NetEase, believes that relevant laws and regulations on online consumption need to be improved, regulatory authorities should issue timely guiding rules, and efforts should be accelerated to build a nationwide industrial product quality safety monitoring and early warning platform to achieve “penetrating” supervision.

Besides external regulation, e-commerce platforms also need to strengthen self-governance. On one hand, they should strictly verify the real information of platform operators, control access thresholds, and improve online dispute resolution mechanisms. On the other hand, they should leverage technological advantages to proactively monitor and identify risks. “Some platforms have already begun using big data analysis to punish ‘source-less’ shops and other violations based on platform rules,” said He Miao, a judge at Hangzhou Internet Court Research Center. He also reminded that regulatory authorities need to effectively restrict platform algorithm powers, explore reasonable regulation of algorithm architecture, promote transparency in algorithm operations, and prevent risks like data-driven “price gouging” and power abuse.

Cao Lei also suggests that consumers actively learn about new consumption rules, remain cautious in high-risk scenarios such as private domain transactions, auto-renewals, and password-free payments, and ensure that consumption remains under platform supervision.

As consumers, before the next “flash sale,” it’s wise to add a “cooling-off” period, stay alert, and keep more evidence.