In recent years, online shopping has become an important way for people to conduct daily transactions. Recently, the Peoples Court of Macun District, Jiaozuo City, Henan Province, concluded a contract dispute case involving online toy purchases. In this case, a shopper purchased a large quantity toys on an online platform for resale. After receiving the goods, the shopper believed the products were "not as described" and, on the grounds of merchant fraud, requested punitive damages ofrefund plus three times the amount." The court, after deliberation, found that the shopping behavior in question clearly exceeded the reasonable limits of normal daily consumption needs. It legally supported the plaintiffs request for a refund of the purchase price but dismissed the claim for triple punitive damages. The judgment provides a valuable reference for identifying consumer status in judicial practice, upholding the principle good faith while preventing the abuse of consumer protection laws, and offering a replicable judicial paradigm for resolving similar disputes. Believing the goods were "not as described," the refund was rejected Before the 2025 Spring Festival, Mr. Fan from Jiaozuo City, Henan Province, saw a flying toy being sold on a live- platform. Wanting to buy the flying toy to sell at a stall at a park entrance, he contacted the live-streaming merchant. The merchant sent Mr. Fan its business license with videos and pictures of the flying toy. The business license showed the merchant's name as a certain e-commerce firm, the enterprise type as an individual industrial and commercial household and the operator as a certain Mr. Ye. On January 7, 2025, Mr. Fan transferred a 200-yuan deposit via a payment provided by the merchant to order a flying package worth 1,388 yuan, while also confirming the relevant shipping information. After the merchant mailed the goods according to the shipping information it sent the shipping documents to Mr. Fan. On January 8, 2025, Mr. Fan paid the merchant the remaining 488 yuan of the price. The parties agreed that the remaining 700 yuan would be collected by the courier company upon Mr. Fan's receipt of the goods. On January 1, 2025, the courier delivered the goods to the door. After unboxing and inspecting the goods on the spot, Mr. Fan found the contents to be:99 electric flying toys, 300 flying fairies, 600 bamboo dragonflies, 1 drone, 1 Bluetooth speaker, and 1 advertising cloth. Mr Fan believed that the 1,388-yuan flying package he ordered should consist entirely of electric flying toys and not include flying fairies and bamboo dragonflies. He claimed the mailed by the merchant did not match what he ordered and therefore refused to accept them. The courier repacked the goods and sent them back. Mr. Fan contacted the merchant to a refund. The merchant argued that it was not at fault for shipping according to the 1,388-yuan flying package list, and since some of the returned goods damaged, it refused to refund the money. Mr. Fan then sued the merchant, claiming that the "not as described" goods constituted fraud, and demanded a refund plus triple compensation The merchant maintained there was no fraudulent behavior and refused the refund. The parties could not reach an agreement, and Mr. Fan took the case to court. Claiming triple compensation the court investigation became the focus

During the litigation process, Mr. Fan raised three claims: First, according to the provisions of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection of the People's Republic of China, the merchant failed to truthfully inform him of the specific contents of the toy package, leading Mr. Fan to make an incorrect purchasing decision, which consumer fraud by the merchant; Second, the merchant engaged in false advertising, claiming on a live streaming platform that the 1,388 yuan flight package contained 99 electric flying toys and did not include the flying fairies and bamboo dragonflies, but the goods mailed by the merchant were inconsistent with its advertising, constituting false advertising; Third, the merchant to provide evidence proving that the goods returned by Mr. Fan were partially damaged, and therefore the merchant has no reason not to refund the payment. Based on this, Mr. Fan filed lawsuit requesting that the merchant refund the paid amount of 688 yuan, compensate 2,064 yuan in accordance with the "refund one and compensate three" clause the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, and bear the litigation costs. The merchant did not appear in court to participate in the litigation, and the case was heard in absentia by court in accordance with the law. During the trial, the judge focused on investigating whether the merchant constituted consumer fraud, whether Mr. Fan fell within the category of consumers protected by the Consumer and Interests Protection Law, and whether the shopping behavior involved clearly exceeded the reasonable limits of normal daily consumption needs. After reviewing the chat records of both parties in court, the judge the following facts: Mr. Fan purchased a large number of toys for the purpose of resale. When communicating with Mr. Fan, the merchant not only sent its business license to him also sent videos and pictures of the flying toys. The picture clearly stated: "1,388 yuan flight package list: 99 mixed flying dolls induction flyers, 00 flying fairies, 600 bamboo dragonflies, 1 free glowing charging drone worth 298 yuan, 1 free large Bluetooth speaker, 1 free advertising". The contents of the goods mailed by the merchant to Mr. Fan were completely consistent with the contents of the 1,388 yuan flight package stated in the above picture. merchant did not commit consumer fraud; support the refund of the payment.

After deliberation, the court found that the merchant fulfilled its obligation to provide goods to Mr. Fan as agreed. Mr. Fan' belief that the 1,388 yuan flight package should include 999 electric flying toys was a subjective error caused by himself. The merchant fulfilled its duty of disclosure did not commit consumer fraud, and Mr. Fan failed to provide effective evidence proving that the selling merchant engaged in fraudulent or false advertising practices. Meanwhile, considering the nature of the purchased items Mr. Fan did not purchase the products in question for personal consumption, and the shopping behavior clearly exceeded the reasonable limits of normal daily consumption needs. Therefore, Mr. Fan does not within the category of protected consumers under the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests. Consequently, Mr. Fan's claim for triple damages against the merchant lacks factual and legal, and the court does not support it in accordance with the law. Given that Mr. Fan has already paid 688 yuan to the merchant, refused to accept the goods, returned them to the merchant, and that the merchant, having been summoned by the court in accordance with the law, failed to appear in court without a justifiable reason, it is deemed that merchant has waived its corresponding litigation rights and shall bear the corresponding adverse legal consequences. Since the merchant failed to submit effective evidence proving that the goods returned by Mr. Fan were partially damaged while the evidence provided by Mr. Fan sufficiently proves that he paid the payment for the goods in question to the merchant, and now the purpose of the sales contract in question has failed be achieved, the court hereby supports Mr. Fan's claim for the merchant to refund the 688 yuan payment in accordance with the law. After the first- judgment, neither party appealed, and the judgment has now taken effect. Judicial Analysis: Why the claim for triple punitive damages was not supported In this case, the focus the dispute lies in whether the shopper falls within the category of protected consumers under the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, and whether the triple punitive damages claimed by the shopper be supported.

On the determination of consumer status under the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Article 2 of the "Consumer Rights Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Consumers who purchase and use goods or accept services for the needs of personal or family consumption shall have their rights and interests protected this Law; for matters not stipulated in this Law, they shall be protected by other relevant laws and regulations." The primary purpose of a consumer purchasing goods is for personal or family consumption needs rather than or sales, which is the most essential characteristic of a consumer. As a consumer, the content of consumption activities includes not only purchasing and using products for personal or family consumption needs but also accepting provided by others for the same purpose. Whether purchasing and using goods or accepting services, the consumer's purpose is to satisfy personal or family consumption needs, not for production and business needs The law grants normal consumers the right to claim punitive damages from producers and sellers, but the purpose is to leverage the consumer's regulatory role in the market. Consumers promote the improvement of product service levels by providing feedback on issues, forming a supervisory force in society. At the same time, increasing the punishment and the cost of illegal acts for violators can effectively promote fair market competition healthy economic development, thereby purifying the production and business environment of the market. In this case, Grandpa Fan purchased a large number of toys for the purpose of resale. His purchase of a thousand toys was not for his own consumption, and his shopping behavior clearly exceeded the reasonable limits of normal living consumption needs, thus not falling within the scope of protected consumers under the Rights Protection Law. Therefore, Grandpa Fan cannot claim triple damages from the merchant based on the "refund one, compensate three" punitive damages rule in the Consumer Rights Protection Law. whether the merchant constitutes consumer fraud. Consumer fraud refers to a situation in the consumer field where an operator induces a consumer to make a mistaken expression of intent through means such as fabricating facts or the truth, which falls under the category of civil fraud. Its constituent elements include the operator's subjective intent, objective fraudulent behavior, and the consumer's transaction based on a mistaken understanding all three are indispensable. In this case, when selling the toys, the merchant had already informed Grandpa Fan of the contents of the 1,388 yuan flight package. Fan's belief that the 1,388 yuan flight package should include 999 electric flying toys was a subjective error in understanding caused by his own reasons. Grandpa Fan is person with full capacity for civil conduct, and the merchant fulfilled its duty of disclosure without constituting consumer fraud. Grandpa Fan also failed to provide effective evidence to prove that the merchant engaged in fraudulent or false advertising. Grandpa Fan does not fall into the situation of being misled into a mistaken understanding due to fraud and thereby purchasing the products in question, so the merchant cannot be identified committing consumer fraud. The court does not support Grandpa Fan's claim for punitive damages of "refund one, compensate three" in accordance with the law. Given that Grandpa Fan has already 688 yuan to the merchant, refused to accept the goods, and returned them to the merchant, and that the merchant failed to appear in court despite a legal summons, the shall refund the 688 yuan payment to Grandpa Fan. Expert Commentary: Defining the Boundaries of Consumer Identity Chen Lei, Associate Professor, School of Law, Capital of Economics and Business

In judicial practice, the determination of consumer status is a prerequisite for the application of the Consumer Rights Protection. The reason for the tilted protection afforded to consumers is that, compared to business operators who possess advantages in market transaction experience, market information, and bargaining power, consumers are in a position. In the equal game between other contracting parties, if the law forcibly intervenes, it will undermine the autonomy of will and fairness. Therefore, it is particularly important to distinguish the boundary between consumer and non-consumer identities. In practice, non-consumer entities that are easily confused with consumers and trigger disputes over the application of the law mainly include entities and "know-the-fake-but-buy-the-fake" buyers. Among them, commercial entities refer to entities such as enterprises and individual industrial and commercial households purchase and receive services for the purpose of production and operation, resale for profit, or commercial investment. As profit-seeking operators, commercial entities do not meet the condition of having a consumption purpose as a consumer; commercial entities are not in a disadvantaged position and should fulfill a higher duty of care regarding their own purchasing behavior, conducting sufficient evaluation and consultation. They hold equal position with merchants in the sales relationship, and therefore there is no room for the application of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The judgment in this case is a determination made based on essential difference between consumers and non-consumers, thereby demonstrating that the provisions of Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law cannot be applied. Another category is the "knowthe-fake-but-buy-the-fake" buyers, namely buyers who knowingly purchase goods with quality problems in order to obtain large compensation and profit from it. These professional exploit the legal protection for consumers to seek benefits, purchase defective products, and maliciously file complaints or lawsuits, and should not be protected by the Consumer Rights Protection Law. It should be that the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Punitive Damages for Food and Drugs" does not uniformly "know-the-fake-but-buy-the-fake" buyers in the food and drug field as not meeting the consumer category and refusing compensation. Instead, given that and drugs are directly related to public health, it relaxes the scope of consumer determination while imposing higher obligations on operators. In judicial practice, courts often adopt a method combining objective and subjective purpose to determine consumer status. Based on general rules of experience, the purpose of life consumption is presumed by observing the purchasing behavior, while allowing the defendant to provide contrary evidence rebuttal. General rules of experience refer to the ability to infer whether a purchaser buys and uses goods or services for personal or family life consumption needs based on the life experience of ordinary people., if the purchased goods are used for production and operation, or if professional claimants repeatedly claim compensation for profit-making purposes, the court may exclude the application of relevant provisions of the Rights Protection Law. In the trial of individual cases, judges should make a comprehensive judgment by combining whether the type, quantity, and amount of the purchased products conform to the common sense life consumption, rather than making a mechanical judgment, while also determining whether the parties belong to professional claimants through the retrieval of related cases.

The identification of normal consumers versus profit-seeking shoppers who buy for the purpose of claiming compensation is not only a key focus in judicial practice but also concerns the balance between consumer rights protection and the healthy development of the market. In this case, the court's dual argumentation regarding the factual issue of non-fraud and legal application issue of not constituting a consumer subject as defined by the Consumer Rights Protection Law holds certain exemplary significance. First, for the general public, the judgment reiterates that the applicable of the Consumer Rights Protection Law are consumers "for the needs of daily life consumption." In this case, Uncle Fan's one-time purchase of nearly a thousand toys clearly deviates the common sense of daily consumption, thereby warning the public that any purchasing behavior aimed at seeking compensation for profit or for business purposes cannot receive the preferential protection of punitive damages. Second, for shoppers, this case clearly points out: if a merchant has clearly explained the package contents, it does not constitute fraud; if the scale and method of the buyer's transaction exceed the of normal consumption, the buyer must bear the commercial risks themselves and cannot seek special remedies under the identity of a consumer. This judicial logic both upholds the principle of good faith and prevents abuse of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, providing a referable judicial paradigm for resolving similar disputes. The judgment also guides the general public to form correct behavioral norms, so as to better create an and trustworthy market and consumption environment. (Outlook New Era)