Online and offline "same style, different quality"? — An investigation into the chaos of e-commerce "AB goods"

Source: Economic Information Daily
Authors: Guo Yujing, Yang Na, Ji Ning

In recent years, as online shopping penetration gradually increases, many people’s shopping methods involve visiting physical stores for an experience and then placing orders online, carefully comparing online and offline prices. However, investigations reveal frequent chaos in e-commerce platforms’ “AB goods” practices, where some merchants lure customers with low prices by promoting “same style, same quality,” but in reality, there are tricks like style confusion, product downgrades, and mismatched items. Behind seemingly bargain prices lies the reality of consumers’ right to know being infringed and difficulties in providing evidence for rights protection. Why do “AB goods” issues persist on e-commerce platforms? How should merchants and platforms be held accountable? And how can consumers be better protected? Our reporters conducted an in-depth investigation.

Frequent Complaints

Recently, some consumers have complained on social media about purchasing a certain brand of down jacket. The product detail page online indicated a fill power of 90%, consistent with the in-store version, but upon receipt, they found the fill power label differed significantly from the offline store.

On social media, many consumers have voiced similar complaints, mainly about the difference in quality between online and offline versions of the same product. Interviews with merchants show that some use “same style, same quality” online and offline as a low-price traffic strategy, intentionally misleading consumers to create the illusion of “finding a bargain.”

— Online and offline look the same but are not the same product. Recently, Ms. Yang from Beijing saw a certain brand pair of jeans in a physical store and then ordered the same from its online flagship store. However, she found the received product was very different from the offline version, with the same size waist fitting poorly. She later compared it at a physical store, where the salesperson said, “This isn’t the same style; the online version is an earlier model, and it’s no longer available offline.” Ms. Yang believes that from the online promotional images, the appearance and even product parameters of the two are almost identical, which could confuse consumers.

Low-priced online products also hide “downgrading” tricks. Mr. Liu from Xi’an experienced this: a nearly identical refrigerator was sold online for hundreds of yuan less than in physical stores. After inquiry, he learned that the online version was a downgraded system version, which is hard to detect without carefully checking the specifications.

— The displayed version online and the actual product received do not match. Investigations found that some industry standards involve “demo versions” versus “actual versions,” even regarded as an “industry unspoken rule.” Online merchants often promote high-quality fabric and meticulous craftsmanship using high-definition close-ups to showcase details, but what consumers receive is rough fabric and uneven stitching, with a significant quality gap.

On the Black Cat Complaint platform, consumers have reported that they bought a pair of shoes for 39.9 yuan in a live broadcast room, originally priced at 189.99 yuan, but found the sole was completely different from what was shown. Another complaint involved purchasing a cotton blanket from a flagship store on a platform, advertised as “double-sided cotton,” but received items with one side cotton and the other polyester fiber.

Our random checks across multiple e-commerce platforms show that customer service uniformly states “same style, same quality” for online and offline products. However, complaints about differences between online and offline goods are frequent on platforms like Black Cat Complaint and Xiaohongshu, especially in clothing, daily chemical products, and small appliances.

Lawyer Zhao Zhanling from Jiweili Law Firm in Beijing said that if merchants do not clearly indicate “e-commerce version” or specify differences between online and offline products, it could be misleading. Online products should not only be labeled as “same style” but also meet the legal scope of consumers’ right to know, including all basic product elements. Deliberate ambiguity or omission of these elements constitutes falsehood or concealment, infringing on consumers’ right to know.

Industry Competition Has Deviated

Why do “AB goods” frequently appear on e-commerce platforms, leaving consumers helpless?

On one hand, the chaos of “AB goods” is a result of the distorted competition in the e-commerce industry. In the context of a mature and saturated traditional e-commerce market, this “visible low price, invisible downgrading” approach has become a shortcut for merchants to cut costs and achieve high profits. Experts interviewed believe that compared to offline sales channels, online prices are more transparent, and long-term price competition has led many merchants to adopt “low-price” as a primary strategy. Promoting “same style, low price online” also caters to consumers’ expectation that online prices should be lower than offline.

朱巍, associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law and vice president of Beijing E-commerce Law Research Association, said that initially, brands distinguished products between online and offline to expand sales channels. But when e-commerce severely impacted offline sales, some merchants began to prioritize online over offline, engaging in prolonged “price wars” that drove prices far below normal levels. This inevitably led to quality sacrifices as merchants sought profits and competitive advantages, resulting in bad money driving out good.

On the other hand, current laws and regulations are not clear enough, allowing a mixed industry environment and making consumer rights protection difficult. Many consumers say they are willing to pay for online products significantly cheaper than offline versions mainly because of online content—text, images, and descriptions—that are almost identical to offline products, with some slight differences not clearly marked. Some merchants do not label products as “e-commerce version” or “same as mall version,” intentionally leading consumers to believe that online and offline products look the same and are the same style.

Industry insiders say that especially during promotional periods like “Double Eleven,” merchants may adjust prices and discount near-duplicate or out-of-season products along with new and high-quality items.

Zhao Zhanling pointed out that the key issue with “same style, different quality” online and offline lies in whether merchants clearly inform or intentionally mislead consumers. Proving merchant fraud or lack of sufficient respect for consumers’ right to know is currently difficult due to the lack of specific definitions and standards for “AB goods.” Judgments are mostly case-by-case, relying on consumers’ perceptions, which makes evidence collection challenging.

Urgent Need for Refined Regulation

Regarding the “mismatch” issue, Zhu Wei said that e-commerce platforms must assume primary responsibility, using AI and other technologies for supervision, especially for products and merchants with frequent negative reviews and complaints, to ensure quality control. Platforms should also visualize merchants’ sales and credit scores, making their behavior more self-regulated once their credit is marked.

“Existing laws are principle-based. We hope to introduce normative documents or industry standards to address these issues,” Zhao Zhanling said. He suggested further clarifying the definition and requirements for “AB goods,” such as detailed online product descriptions, including item number, color, texture, etc., with clear and comprehensive labels. Vague descriptions, small font, or missing information that intentionally cause consumer confusion should be prohibited.

Platforms should facilitate consumer complaint and reporting channels, not only ensuring consumers have access to complaints but also providing timely feedback and genuinely resolving issues. Regulatory authorities should also accelerate research on new problems and phenomena reported by consumers, establishing long-term constraints and deterrent mechanisms.

Zhu Wei recommended that consumer associations and related organizations play a guiding and supervisory role by strengthening targeted publicity, guidance, and periodically releasing negative cases to promote industry self-discipline. Consumers should also improve their discernment, shopping rationally—not just comparing prices but also comparing quality.