Ms. Su from Suzhou was induced by "rebates, gift items, and high-priced buybacks" in the live broadcast room. After spending more than 160,000 yuan on shopping, she encountered incorrect goods, and the promised rebates and buybacks were not fulfilled. She sued the merchant for fraud. After the first and second trials, the court finally ruled to revoke the contract and provide a full refund to the merchant. But it only won a verdict.
Products purchased by women
Live broadcast room "rebate repurchase", invested more than 160,000 yuan and found that the goods were not correct
Ms. Su is 61 years old and lives in Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province. She said that she didn’t expect that she could be defrauded when buying things online, and she lost her pension money in this deception.
According to Ms. Su, from August to October 2024, she had been watching and selling goods in the live broadcast room of a certain video platform "Huahaoyueyuan A". The main operator of this live broadcast room was Xianyou County Licheng Shimo Department Store (hereinafter referred to as "Shimo Store").
Screenshot of live broadcast room
"The anchor repeatedly promised in the live broadcast room that as long as you take photos of goods in the live broadcast room, you can enjoy subsidies. The more you buy, the more repurchase subsidies will be. Merchants will also repurchase the sold goods at a high price in November 2024. In addition, the anchor also displayed gold items many times, claiming that when you place an order, you will get a gold necklace and cash rebates, saying that 'if you grab it, you will earn it, and you will never have it again in this life. Such an opportunity', 'helping fans reduce stress and save tens of thousands of dollars a year'…" Ms. Su said that after the anchor's long-term promotion, she placed an order and waited for the rebates and gold items promised by the other party. "Even if I don't want the product, I can buy it back and cash it out from the merchant." In these short two months, she paid a total of more than 164,000 yuan in the live broadcast room.
The order page provided by Ms. Su shows that on August 24, 2024, Ms. Su bought 100 strings of Xiuyu bracelets in the live broadcast room, and the price of each string was 138 yuan; on October 30, 2024, Ms. Su bought 10 bed brushes, and the price of a single bed brush ranged from 3,857 yuan to 39,948.99 yuan. According to statistics, Ms. Su spent a total of more than 164,000 yuan in this store.
The order shows that a bed brush worth 39,000 yuan was purchased.
Ms. Su said that the actual goods sent by the merchant were neither bed brushes nor Xiuyu bracelets. What she received were 863 bracelets. "At that time, I thought the other party would repurchase, so I didn't care about it."
The actual arrival is 863 string bracelets
The rights protection failed and the merchant was sued. The merchant denied fraud and did not admit that he had made any promises.
"When the repurchase period promised by the merchant expired in November 2024, Shimo Commercial Bank did not repurchase in accordance with the previous oral agreement, and the so-called subsidies, rebates, and free goldware were not honored." Ms. Su said that she realized something was wrong and hurriedly contacted the merchant's customer service through the platform. She also called the host of the live broadcast room multiple times and asked the other party to refund the full payment. But no matter how Ms. Su communicated, the merchant refused to process the refund.
In desperation, Ms. Su sued Shimo Trading Company to the People's Court of Xianyou County, Fujian Province, hoping to protect her legitimate rights and interests through legal channels.
It is understood that the court held three hearings from April to August 2025.
In court, Ms. Su said that she bought the bracelet because the merchant said it would provide rebates, gift items, and repurchase. She did not expect that the merchant had no integrity and did not fulfill the promotional promises of the live broadcast room. This is consumer fraud.
Ms. Su made a clear request to the court to revoke the information network sales contract between her and Shimo Commercial Company in accordance with the law. She also requested the merchant to return the entire payment of 164,423.66 yuan she paid. The litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the merchant. She also expressed her willingness to return all the 863 bracelets she received to the merchants.
In response to Ms. Su's prosecution, Shimo Commercial Firm firmly denied the existence of fraud, nor did it admit that it had ever made promises such as buybacks, rebates, and gift items.
Courts at both levels found fraud and ordered the merchant to refund the full amount
The merchant argued that the sales contract between the two parties had been fulfilled, the goods had been delivered, the payment had been settled, the rights and obligations of the contract had been terminated, and there was no prerequisite for revocation. At the same time, it was claimed that Ms. Su's purchase was in large quantities and in high amounts, and was a wholesale purchase business, not an ordinary consumer. Moreover, the seven-day no-reason return period had exceeded, and she had no right to request a refund.
After hearing the case, the People's Court of Xianyou County, Fujian Province held that Shimo Trading Company did not truly and fully disclose product information during the live broadcast. The anchor used inducing language to make Ms. Su fall into the misunderstanding that she could get rebates, gift items, and high-price repurchases. The actual delivered goods were seriously inconsistent with the order markings and promotional content, which constituted fraud in the legal sense.
The first-instance judgment of the court revoked the sales contract between the two parties, and the merchant returned the payment of 164,423.66 yuan to Ms. Su within ten days of the judgment taking effect. Ms. Su returned 863 bracelets in the same period, and the case acceptance fee was borne entirely by the merchant.
After the verdict of the first instance was announced, Shimo Trading Company was dissatisfied and appealed to the Putian Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province. It insisted that the transaction was the true intention of both parties and that the merchant did not commit fraud. It requested that the verdict be changed to reject all Ms. Su's claims.
The second-instance court held that the first-instance judgment clearly identified the facts and applied the law correctly, rejected the appeal, and upheld the original judgment.
Ms. Su's son Qi Fen (pseudonym) told the Chinese Business Daily Dafeng News reporter that after a year of time-consuming and labor-intensive litigation, he unexpectedly only won a verdict. "In February this year, the execution judge gave feedback on the situation: the legal representative of the company is an old man over 70 years old, with only 100 yuan in his bank account and no other property."
Market supervision: All store operators complained against have lost contact
After combing through, Qi Fen also found that in addition to the more than 164,000 yuan in the above-mentioned judgment, his mother also made three purchases at the platform stores "Agarwood Heritage Family" and "Wanxin Wenwan", one for more than 3,800 yuan, and the other for more than 2,400 yuan. They entered Kamiqiao, Licheng City, Xianyou County respectively. The jewelry store and Xiaobing Department Store in Xianyou County also had an order originally placed at the "Wanxin Wenwan" store. Later, the customer service of the store asked to scan the QR code on WeChat to pay. "Through inquiry, it was found that the amount paid by WeChat was more than 14,000 yuan, and it went to the account of Chenyuge Arts and Crafts Store in Bangtou Town, Xianyou County."
Qi Fen said that considering the issue of legal fees, he only filed lawsuits against the companies that had been defrauded the most. For the remaining companies, he chose to complain to the local 12315 consumer hotline in Fujian.
The reporter saw from the receipt given by the Xianyou County Market Management Bureau that after investigation and visits by law enforcement officers, the operators of Licheng Kamiqiao Jewelry Store in Xianyou County and Xiaobing Department Store in Xianyou County were not contacted, and law enforcement officers also did not find these two companies. For the transaction of scanning the QR code to pay for the Chenyuge Arts and Crafts Store in Bangtou Town, Xianyou County, the operator admitted that he had received 14,422 yuan, but did not know the specific circumstances. He claimed that he was helping Queyue Department Store in Licheng County, Xianyou County to collect the payment on his behalf. After verification by the regulatory authorities, Xianyou County Licheng Queyue Department Store did not operate at the registered office location, and the operator lost contact.
The Xianyou County Market Management Bureau has listed the above three missing companies on the list of operating abnormalities.
Ms. Su was not alone in being deceived. There were 31 people who had the same experience as her. "We added each other on WeChat because we were deceived. After getting to know each other, the vast majority of people who were deceived did not dare to tell their families, so that their family members would not be able to defend their rights if they knew about it. They could only admit that they were unlucky." In some screenshots of the chats provided by Ms. Su, some of the deceived people were unwilling to accept the deception, and they could not sleep at night and were in fear all day long. Some people also said that they reported it to the police behind their families' backs, but the police regarded it as a dispute and ignored it.
WeChat chat screenshot
Ms. Su wants to know if these merchants are selling goods online without supervision and their offline addresses have not been traced. Can they be cheated? How should everyone protect their own rights and interests?
Lawyer’s statement:
Winning the lawsuit but not getting the money back, the lawyer analyzes the criminal and civil boundaries of the live broadcast "rebate gift device" scam
Zhao Liangshan, senior partner of Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm and a well-known public interest lawyer, believes that from a legal perspective, the reason why this incident is more likely to constitute civil fraud than a crime of fraud is mainly because the merchant used "rebates, gift items, and high-price repurchases" as bait in the live broadcast room to induce Ms. Su to purchase goods that were not of the correct quality and failed to fulfill their promises. This behavior is consistent with According to the elements of fraud stipulated in the Civil Code, the court ruled to cancel the contract and issue a full refund, and the law was accurately applied. The core of the crime of fraud lies in the purpose of illegal possession. In this case, the merchant actually delivered 883 string bracelets, which gave the appearance of a transaction, and the subjective purpose of illegal possession is difficult to directly prove. Therefore, there are currently great legal obstacles in determining the crime of fraud.
Zhao Liangshan said that if you want to convert civil disputes into criminal liability, the key is to supplement evidence to prove the purpose of illegal possession. Victims can collect evidence such as the merchant's inability to perform the contract (such as no actual operation, broken capital chain), transfer of property after payment or squandering, and refusal to perform refund obligations. At the same time, the total losses of 31 victims can be collected to form an evidence chain of public fraud. In this way, they can complain to the public security organs and promote the filing of a criminal case in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 266 of the Criminal Law on the crime of fraud, and then recover the stolen money.
Zhao Liangshan suggested that in view of this, on the path of rights protection, it is recommended to use civil execution guarantees as the basis, supplemented by criminal accountability. On the one hand, continue to advance the execution procedures of civil cases, apply to add actual controllers and shareholders of businesses as persons subject to execution, and try to make up for losses as much as possible; on the other hand, submit complete evidence materials to the public security organs and try to initiate criminal investigations. Through parallel criminal and civilian methods, we can protect our legitimate rights and interests to the greatest extent, and at the same time curb this type of live broadcast fraud.
Huashang Daily Dafeng News reporter Miao Qiaoying editor Li Jing
