"Do you want to prove that your boyfriend is my boyfriend?" It is reported that on November 30, Ms. Zhang from Zhengzhou, Henan, broke the news that she and her boyfriend wanted to refund the ticket of Shanghai Disneyland after they bought the ticket of Shanghai Disneyland at Flying Pig because they were ill, and the platform asked them to provide the "proof of relationship" issued by the police station, the company or the community, otherwise they could not pass the refund review. The staff of the police station said that the matter could be reported to the consumer association, the market supervision department, or resolved through judicial channels.
It's ridiculous to have to issue a certificate to return a ticket. It's even more ridiculous that consumers should issue a certificate of love relationship. How can we prove that the relationship between lovers has no legal effect?
Whether this operation can be realized is irrelevant, but it is an indisputable fact that consumers are deliberately difficult. For one thing, the relationship between lovers has proved impossible to open, and there is no organization to open. In this regard, the staff of the police station has clearly said, "We can't issue this thing, how can we issue it?"
Second, even if an institution has issued a certificate of love relationship, it is difficult to make people feel at ease. This trend cannot last long, and this gap cannot be opened. If it continues, the platform may require consumers to open a variety of "bizarre" exotic certificates. It is despicable to create difficulties for consumers.
In recent years, the central government has been governing the wonderful works. For example, as early as 2018, the Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Doing a Good Job in Clearing up Certification Matters required that the deployment of reducing certificates for the convenience of the people and optimizing services should be implemented, and the certification matters that are not regulated by laws and regulations should be canceled. It should be said that the exotic flower has almost disappeared among relevant departments. Who could have expected that some platforms unexpectedly revived the wonderful proof, which made people sigh.
Therefore, we need to ask why the relevant platform dare to let consumers open a wonderful proof? On the surface, it is unwilling for consumers to refund their tickets, so they deliberately set up barriers to discourage consumers. In fact, it reveals that the business ethics of the platform has gone wrong and the business model has deviated.
As an enterprise dealing directly with consumers, the most basic bottom line requirement is to comply with the law, and the most basic way of business is to establish the concept of consumers first. If stores bully customers or violate consumers' rights and interests by setting overlord clauses, they will inevitably be abandoned by consumers.
It is worth mentioning that the Feizhu platform has been accused of leaking users' personal information before, which has been criticized for a while. In addition, consumers complained about "non refundable taxes". It is reported that many consumers "complained" about the "overbearing terms" of Feizhu ticket refunds on the social platform, and mentioned many times that although the page displayed the words "free rebooking" and "full refund", the returned amount was deducted from the high service fee.
It is no accident that the platform has been involved in public opinion disturbances again and again. If the business model does not correct the deviation, can it fly all the way?
Of course, platform enterprises have the need to safeguard their own rights and interests, and also have the right to set relevant rules, but the premise is reasonable and legal. Taking the wonderful proof as an example, it is wrong for consumers to still be challenged when they have already provided medical information and photos of lovers. Moreover, it is illegal to require consumers to issue such certificates that do not comply with the law. How can it be convincing?
Respect for the rights and interests of consumers is not stated, and treating consumers well cannot be reduced to flaunting. In this case, consumers certainly have the right to take up legal weapons to safeguard their rights, and the regulatory authorities cannot be silent.
