Consumer Rights Protection: These Pain Points Deserve Attention (Focus on Rule of Law)

(Original Title: Supreme Court Releases Typical Cases in Response to Hot Issues in Consumer Rights Protection — Consumer Rights Protection: These Pain Points Deserve Attention (Legal Focus))

How to determine behavior when weight loss products contain prohibited ingredients? If automatic renewal charges are not properly reminded, can consumers request a refund? How to protect rights when purchasing pets with “mismatched” quality? The Supreme People’s Court releases typical cases on consumer rights protection, focusing on food and drug consumption, online consumption, emerging fields, and other areas, addressing hot issues in consumer rights protection.

Adding Prohibited Ingredients in Food, and Seller’s Failure to Verify, Also Liable for Punitive Damages

In recent years, the market for weight loss products has been expanding continuously. However, some manufacturers add prohibited ingredients to these products, seriously threatening consumers’ health.

Yu spent over 2,000 yuan to buy a certain weight loss food from Zhang’s online store, produced by a health supplement company. After receiving the product, Yu discovered that the supplement company had its business license revoked years ago, so he reported the case to the police. Appraisal confirmed that the product contained a large amount of sibutramine, a substance banned in food. Yu sued, requesting Zhang to bear ten times the price as punitive damages.

“According to the Food Safety Law, if a seller knowingly sells food that does not meet safety standards, consumers have the right to demand ten times the price as compensation. The seller’s failure to perform verification obligations and selling toxic or harmful food, allowing the risk of damage to occur, should be deemed as knowingly selling non-compliant food.” The court found that Zhang sold weight loss food that did not meet safety standards, and supported Yu’s claim for punitive damages.

Protection of elderly consumers’ rights is also a judicial focus. In practice, some operators make false claims, exaggerate product effects, and induce elderly consumers to buy, infringing on their legitimate rights.

Zhao promoted a therapy product online claiming it could “lower three highs” and “treat diabetic complications.” Sun saw this and went to Zhao’s therapy shop for an experience, purchasing ten therapy sessions totaling over 10,000 yuan. However, the shop only used ordinary skincare products for treatment. After four sessions, no effect was observed. Sun tried to negotiate a refund with Zhao, but failed, and filed a lawsuit.

“Operators providing information about goods or services must be truthful and comprehensive, and must not make false or misleading claims. Zhao’s false advertising claiming ‘lowering three high’ and exaggerating efficacy to induce elderly consumers to buy constitutes fraud. He should refund and pay punitive damages.” The court ordered Zhao to refund over 10,000 yuan and pay triple the amount as punitive damages.

Automatic Membership Renewal, Inadequate and Unclear Reminders, Refunds for Deducted Fees and Interest

Automatic renewal makes consumption more convenient. However, in practice, some operators lack proper or prominent reminder notices, and make it inconvenient to cancel auto-renewal.

A certain company operates a video platform. Xie purchased a membership with a “continuous annual” plan, which included automatic renewal, with the service agreement specifying that if a billing error occurs, the responsible party shall bear the liability.

About a year later, the company sent Xie a reminder about automatic renewal but did not set an automatic pop-up alert, and the notification path was unclear. On the same day, the company also sent a text message to Xie’s phone, but it failed to deliver. Afterwards, the company did not remind Xie again. After noticing the deduction, Xie requested a refund, which was refused. He sued, asking the court to order the company to refund and compensate for interest during the period of funds being held.

According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, consumers have the right to know and choose freely. The “Network Transaction Supervision and Management Measures” issued by the Market Supervision Administration stipulate that operators providing services via auto-renewal or auto-extension must clearly remind consumers five days before renewal or billing, allowing consumers to make an independent choice.

“In a platform where information carries many advertising notifications, the company’s failure to set an automatic pop-up reminder and the unclear notification path make the reminder not prominent.” The court held that after the text message failed, the company did not continue to fulfill its reminder obligation, failing to fully protect consumers’ right to know and right to choose. The court supported Xie’s claim.

Currently, booking hotel rooms online has become common. Lu booked a three-day, two-night stay at a certain inn through an online travel platform, paying the full amount of 1,281 yuan. The booking page marked “non-cancellable after 30 minutes of booking, full prepayment required for cancellation.” Due to missing the train to the destination, Lu applied for a full refund two hours after booking confirmation. The inn refused, citing Lu’s late cancellation.

According to the Civil Code, the party providing standard terms must follow the principle of fairness when defining rights and obligations; unreasonable burdens on the other party are invalid. “The inn’s online order acceptance forms a hotel service contract.” The court held that although the order page indicated that “cancellation is not allowed after 30 minutes,” Lu’s cancellation request was made 14 days before check-in, giving the inn a reasonable period and market conditions to resell the room. Enforcing the clause would unfairly increase the consumer’s burden and violate fairness principles.

Ultimately, the court awarded Lu a refund of 1,000 yuan based on the inn’s actual loss, considering contract performance, whether the cancellation affected secondary sales, and the fault of the parties.

“Aesthetic Economy” and Pet Economy Fields Prone to Fraud, Watch Out for False Advertising and “Mismatched” Quality

With improved living standards, “aesthetic economy” has become increasingly common. However, some medical beauty service providers operate without licenses, make false claims, and substitute inferior products, harming consumers’ health and property rights.

Zhang repeatedly received botox injections and rhinoplasty at a cosmetic store, but developed nodules and redness on his nose and face. The staff falsely claimed to have medical beauty qualifications and compliant products, attributing symptoms to Zhang’s own constitution and promising to repair. After multiple repairs without improvement, Zhang sought hospital treatment. He sued, requesting the store to refund over 50,000 yuan and pay triple damages.

According to regulations, cosmetic medical institutions must register with health authorities and obtain a “Medical Institution Practice License” before operating. “In this case, the cosmetic store, knowing it lacked medical qualification, still provided Zhang with multiple medical aesthetic services with quality issues, and engaged in concealment and false promises, constituting fraud.” The court ordered the store to refund over 50,000 yuan and pay triple damages.

In recent years, consumption related to pet purchase and care has grown steadily. Some operators promote “purebred” claims to attract buyers, but disputes often arise over “mismatched” quality.

Gao wanted to buy a purebred Pomeranian and paid over 8,000 yuan to a pet company. However, four days later, a veterinary check revealed the dog had patellar dislocation and nasolacrimal duct obstruction. The provided breed certificate was forged, and no other evidence proved the dog was a purebred Pomeranian. Gao sued, requesting the company to refund and pay triple damages.

The Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that operators must provide truthful and comprehensive information about product quality and performance, and cannot make false or misleading claims. “The breed of a pet significantly affects its market value, and the breed certificate is an important proof of authenticity, which was a key consideration for Gao when purchasing.” The court found that the pet company provided false breed certificates and failed to provide other evidence, and the dog had multiple health issues inconsistent with the promises made.

The court concluded that the pet company’s false advertising about the breed information constituted fraud, and ordered the company to refund over 8,000 yuan and pay triple damages.

Links

China Consumers Association Reminds —

Pay Attention to Unfair Restrictions in Service Contract Standard Terms

People’s Daily, Beijing, March 19 — (Reporter Qi Zhiming) The China Consumers Association and the China Market Supervision Administration Society released the “Typical Cases of Consumer Complaint Mediation 2023–2025.” These cases cover fraud in live broadcast sales, minors’ “smoke card” consumption, shared e-scooter injury claims, agricultural machinery loans, overpriced herbal medicine purchases in other regions, pet bathing losses, and more, demonstrating the active efforts of consumer organizations nationwide to resolve disputes and protect consumer rights.

For example, in the “Shared E-scooter Injury Claim When Not Scanning with Personal ID” case, in April 2025, Ms. Qi’s adult son was involved in a traffic accident while riding a shared scooter operated by Shanghai Hello Puhui Technology Co., Ltd., due to vehicle quality issues. The company refused compensation, citing the insurance clause that “accidents occurring when riding with a non-personal real-name account scan code are not covered.” The Cangzhou Consumer Protection Committee investigated and found that the insurance company’s clause, which excluded “scanning for others,” was unreasonable and limited consumers’ claims. The committee recommended the national financial supervision authority to correct this behavior, which led to the insurance company changing the clause. The China Consumers Association reminds consumers to carefully read standard terms before signing service contracts or purchasing goods, paying special attention to clauses about exemption of rights, liability limitations, and breach responsibilities. When disputes occur, report promptly.