The buyer signed for the 8th day of the women's dress and applied for a refund on the grounds that she did not want it, and the poacher's customer's service intervened to pass it. When the seller received it, it found large blood stains on the clothes, although a video of the receipt was provided and a refusal was denied, the result of which was not determined two days later。
However, according to mr. Yu, this is not unusual. There is often a buyer's contact platform for late return of goods that intervenes or is repeatedly delayed by modification of the door-to-door pick-up; the buyer claims that there is a quality problem, but the seller has to prove it; and the returned commodity affects secondary sales, and the vendor does not necessarily receive platform support for the corresponding material as requested by the platform。
According to mr. Yu, according to the back office statistics, the return rate for their stores was nearly 70 per cent in 2025, which affected 20 per cent or 20 per cent of secondary sales, with over 200 items。
The morning reporter noted that many of mr. Yu's social platforms were posted and other treasure hunters shared similar problems. “seven days without reason to return the goods is a lie”, “i had a list in the previous period, almost two months, and i did not agree to return, and the other party sought direct service to request a return of the goods with quality issues, passing in seconds”, “refunding the freight charges and selling the goods ...”
Remittance clothing was blacked out, video examination was provided, refusal certificate was still awarded in support of the buyer; 13 days after receipt, application was made for “comprehensive industry processing practices”
Mr. Yu told the journalist that she had two women's dress shops in her shop, which were self-employed in factories, at prices ranging from $100 to hundreds。
“it is becoming increasingly apparent that it began after june last year (2024).” as stated in its latest circular, when blood-stained returns were received, the buyer signed in the evening of 18 december for a set of dresses purchased by women, and then filed an application for refund on the grounds that it did not want them at noon on the 8th, 26 december。
Based on the relevant schedules of the order, one minute after the buyer's application, the platform's passenger service rendered a judgement in support of the buyer's refund. On 29 december, after the receipt of the goods by mr. Yu, it was discovered that the blood trails had chosen to be rejected, and the platform indicated that the documentation required was at least one of the requirements, such as the video of the unchartered inspection, the denial of a certificate, and the certificate of red seal of the logistics company. Mr. Yu provided it, but it was inconclusive until the afternoon of 31 december。
Mr. Yu has no confidence in the final outcome. He argued that the platform might reject the business for lack of a particular certificate。
In early december, for example, he faced another return. On 26 november, a buyer issued a purchase order for a pink sweater, and on 29 november an application was filed for the reason that “colour/form/size/size does not match description”, and the platform required the buyer to upload a “measured picture”. The relevant screenshot shows that the photos uploaded by the buyer were only in the sweater area. Twenty seconds later, the platform's clients reported that negative feedback on the commodity was monitored to a higher extent than that of their peers, that the transaction supported the refund of the goods and that the seller bore the freight。
Following receipt of the returned package, mr. Yu discovered that the cuffs of the clothes were clearly black, that he chose to refuse to receive and provide the corresponding video, and that the platform's passenger service concluded that the quality of the goods was a problem and that the risk of returning the goods was borne by the seller。
Moreover, mr. Yu stated that a buyer who applied for a refund of the goods within a seven-day unjustified period was automatically passed through the platform, yet the other party had repeatedly modified the time of the taking of the goods, from 23 october to 8 november, when the buyer cancelled the taking of the items and made a new appointment and entered the next round of modifications, “it is perfectly fit to wear it until it does not want to return”
In addition, on 25 december, after a buyer had signed up on 12 december, it applied for “no choice of size”, and the platform's passenger service intervened after about half a minute and gave priority to “comprehensive member historical return behaviour and industry processing practices”。
Mr. Yu also stated that if the buyer chooses the “quality problem”, the documentation provided can be passed even if it is a picture of the sky, while the burden of proof is on the merchant to prove that there is no quality problem and that there is no discrepancy between the materials or the colours, which would be a long time and high cost for most garment dealers。
Mr. Yu explained that the previous platform rule had been that consumers could provide a certificate of entry, such as a receipt invoice, if they applied for quality issues and when the merchant gave evidence. It now takes 24 hours for a commercial case to provide a third-party body quality review report, which usually costs hundreds to thousands of dollars。
There's a consumer who says they can upload the papers
The morning reporter also consulted a number of consumers around him at random. Consumers have indicated that there may be a connection with the purchase class, and some have stricter evidentiary requirements, but the clothing class does feel relatively relaxed, having found that the clothing was inappropriate after the order had been confirmed for receipt, and based on elements such as shelving, which are successfully refunded with the consent of the merchant。
Consumers with more experience of returning goods indicated that they would also have a monthly refund limit, even though they were high-quality members of the treasure hunt. It usually chooses its reasons for refund on the basis of its own actual situation, and if it chooses “quality problems”, “material mismatches” etc., it needs to be supported, “but just one shot”。
On 30 december, journalists from the morning newspaper also consulted the treasure hunters through their personal accounts, saying that the platform was based on the principles of fairness and justice, “we are both fair and just, be we merchants or buyers. Refunds for quality issues (buyers) require proof, which also requires systematic and manual review.”
On 31 january, the ad hoc guest service indicated to the morning newspaper journalist that it would not be able to respond without a specific trade order。
