仅退款把商家逼上绝路

This article exposes that malicious "refund without return" fraud in the e-commerce industry has evolved from individual petty hustling to a large-scale organized gray criminal产业链. It alerts both ordinary consumers and sellers, with key takeaways as follows:

1. Malicious refund without return has become an industrialized issue. It accounted for 45.22% of total merchant complaints in 2025, ranking first among all complaint types. In the first quarter of 2026, it made up over 43% of all complaints on both Taobao and Douyin. Perpetrators now use AI to forge images of damaged or non-conforming products, lowering the barrier to commit fraud, and have even built a zero-cost black产业链 covering ordering, fraudulent refund, and resale of received products on the secondary market.

2. Small and independent sellers should take proactive protective measures. Do not simply accept losses when facing malicious refund requests. Preserve a complete evidence chain in advance, including full-process packaging videos, shipping documentation, and pre-shipment product photos, to facilitate future rights protection.

3. Ordinary consumers should be aware that malicious refund without return is not harmless petty opportunism—it crosses legal red lines. Perpetrators can be charged with fraud if the amount involved meets the threshold, and multiple offenders have already received prison sentences, with the maximum penalty reaching six years.

The rampant spread of malicious "refund without return" fraud in e-commerce has created huge operational risks for brands. Key insights for brands are as follows:

1. Current industry status: Malicious refund without return has formed a complete gray产业链, with AI lowering the barrier to perpetrate large-scale bulk fraud. Today this issue accounts for nearly half of all merchant complaints. Most brands end up absorbing losses after failed appeals, and many are forced to raise prices to offset bad debt or reduce exposure to high-risk product categories. This ultimately harms brand reputation and erodes consumer trust.

2. Risk prevention: Brands need to establish a comprehensive order documentation system. Record the full packaging process for large orders, and preserve complete evidence related to products, logistics and packaging to avoid losing payment due to insufficient proof.

3. Rights protection: In addition to filing appeals with platforms, brands can pursue legal action against malicious perpetrators. This not only allows recovery of lost payment, but also enables claims for litigation-related costs including attorney fees and travel expenses. If a platform fails to fulfill its review obligations, brands can also hold the platform liable for damages.

This article summarizes risk alerts, policy updates and response solutions for small and medium-sized sellers facing the rampant malicious "refund without return" chaos in e-commerce, with key takeaways as follows:

1. Risk alert: Malicious refund without return has evolved from small-scale试探 to large-scale organized fraud. AI has lowered the barrier for perpetrators to forge fake evidence, and this issue accounted for 45.22% of all merchant complaints in 2025, ranking first. Platform rules are heavily skewed in favor of consumers, with high requirements for appeals and long processing times. Fewer than 1 in 10 appeals succeed, leaving most sellers to absorb losses on their own.

2. Updated policy: The "Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Trading Platform Rules" took effect in February 2026. It explicitly stipulates that platforms cannot force sellers to bear the responsibility of refund without return, and must guarantee sellers' right to argue and present evidence. Sellers can rely on this new regulation to protect their legitimate rights and interests.

3. Response solutions: Sellers should take proactive prevention measures: record full packaging videos for all shipments and preserve complete product and logistics evidence. When encountering malicious refund requests, report to the police and pursue legal action promptly. Sellers can claim compensation for all rights protection costs, and hold platforms liable if they fail to fulfill their responsibilities.

As more factories launch direct-to-consumer e-commerce operations, the malicious "refund without return" trend has brought new operational risks and key insights, summarized as follows:

1. Risks and opportunities: As the direct-to-consumer factory model grows in popularity, factories face end consumers directly with no middlemen to share risk. The platform-wide "refund without return" rule exposes factories directly to fraud risk. Bulk large-amount malicious refunds can cause losses of hundreds of thousands to over one million RMB, disrupting normal production cash flow. Therefore, factories must put risk prevention measures in place before launching e-commerce operations.

2. Insights for digital e-commerce operations: Factories need to refine operational processes for online sales and establish a standardized order evidence preservation system. For all orders, especially large-amount orders, factories should retain complete packaging videos, original product photos and logistics documents to avoid being unable to protect rights due to insufficient evidence when issues arise.

3. Insights for rights protection: Do not simply accept losses just because the amount involved is small. Report to police and pursue legal action promptly. This not only allows you to recover lost payment, but also lets you claim compensation for rights protection costs including travel expenses and attorney fees. Serious offenders will face criminal charges, which effectively deters further fraud.

Rampant malicious "refund without return" fraud has become the most prominent pain point in the e-commerce industry, bringing new industry changes and business opportunities for e-commerce service providers. Key takeaways are as follows:

1. Industry trends: The "refund without return" rule was originally designed as a convenience for perishable fresh produce, but after platforms expanded it to all product categories, it gradually spawned a gray产业链 of malicious fraud. Combined with AI that lowers the barrier to perpetrate fraud, the problem has grown significantly: it accounted for 45.22% of total merchant complaints in 2025, making it the top complaint issue for merchants. Merchants have extremely strong demand for risk prevention and rights protection services.

2. Core customer pain points: Most small and medium-sized merchants lack comprehensive risk prevention systems, as well as standardized processes and awareness for evidence preservation. When they encounter malicious refunds, the success rate of platform appeals is extremely low. The cost of cross-region rights protection on their own is often far higher than the value of the lost payment, so most merchants simply absorb the loss. This is a very acute pain point.

3. Solution directions to explore: Service providers can develop standardized shipping evidence preservation tools and order risk early warning services tailored to merchant demand. They can also partner with law firms to launch bulk rights protection services, helping small and medium-sized merchants lower the cost of risk prevention and rights protection to solve this core pain point.

This article exposes multiple problems in the implementation of the "refund without return" rule, and puts forward clear warnings and improvement directions for platform rule design and operation management, with key takeaways as follows:

1. Three core problems with current platform rules: First, a one-size-fits-all approach that enables refund without return for all product categories regardless of their unique attributes. Second, review processes are biased toward consumers, leaving seller appeal channels effectively toothless—proof requirements are extremely high, and most appeals are rejected outright. Third, regulatory gaps: platforms turn a blind eye to malicious fraud to please consumers, allowing the criminal产业链 to scale up, seriously harming merchant interests and triggering widespread merchant dissatisfaction.

2. Policy compliance requirements: The "Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Trading Platform Rules" that took effect in February 2026 explicitly stipulates that platforms cannot force merchants to bear the responsibility of refund without return, and must guarantee merchants' right to argue and present evidence. Most existing platform rules do not meet the requirements of the new regulation, exposing platforms to compliance risks.

3. Operational improvement directions: Platforms need to adjust rule details, clarify eligible product categories and amount thresholds for refund without return, and optimize the appeal review process to balance the interests of consumers and merchants. Only this can maintain a stable platform ecosystem, prevent the departure of high-quality merchants, and support long-term platform growth.

This article exposes the emerging industrial problem of malicious "refund without return" fraud in e-commerce, providing new cases and research directions for relevant academic and industry research. Key insights are as follows:

1. New industry trends: The "refund without return" rule, originally designed as a convenience for fresh produce, spawned a large-scale gray产业链 of malicious fraud after platforms expanded it to all product categories. The problem has worsened as AI lowers the barrier to perpetrate fraud: it accounted for 45.22% of total merchant complaints in 2025, ranking first, and has become a prominent issue threatening the survival of small and medium-sized e-commerce merchants.

2. Core exposed problems: Some platforms still ignore the new regulation in practice. Fundamentally, platforms choose to sacrifice merchant interests to secure user growth and traffic dividends, shifting after-sales risk to sellers. This exposes a structural problem of interest imbalance caused by profit-seeking incentives in platform governance, and there is room for improvement in both existing rule design and regulatory oversight.

3. Research implications: Further research can be conducted on the fair design of e-commerce transaction rules, the legal definition of platform responsibility, and source-side governance approaches for malicious fraud. The goal is to explore institutional solutions that balance the interests of consumers, merchants and platforms, and promote the development of a fair and orderly e-commerce ecosystem.