Netease Kaola Trapped In The "True And False Goose" Crisis, Accused Of Unknown Identification Process

Buy a down jacket on Netease koala and verify it 3 times, but the result is different every time.

Netease Kaola, an overseas e-commerce platform that claims to be "100% authentic, self operated, and 10% compensation for fake products", has recently been caught in the storm of "real and fake Canada geese".

Recently, women in the consumer line suspected that the Canadian goose down jacket they bought in the Kaola of Netease was a fake. Later, both parties took photos and sent emails to ask the manufacturer to "verify" the same down jacket. However, they identified the same down jacket three times before and after, but received three different replies: false, true and false.

On January 24, we interviewed Netease Kaola on related issues, and the other party said, "This commodity was purchased from the first tier supplier officially authorized by Canada Goose. The relevant purchase links always welcome friends from journalists to Hangzhou for on-site inspection. Next, Netease Kaola will continue to urge the Canadian Goose official to complete the physical identification as soon as possible, publish the identification results, and give consumers, the public and the media concerned an objective and accurate answer. "

Doubts about the authenticity of 5500 yuan down jacket

In December last year, the consumer line lady in Beijing said on her personal microblog that she bought a down jacket of the Canadian goose brand at 5567.04 yuan on the Kaola platform of Netease. After receiving the goods, she found that the clothes were poorly made and there were many threads on the clothes.

Later, Ms. Xian sent many photos of the anti-counterfeiting logo and trademark of the clothes to the official Canada Goose counterfeit inspection mailbox. Canada Goose replied that this Canadian goose down jacket is a fake.

On January 8, Kaola of NetEase said on its official microblog that the Canada goose sold on the platform was authentic after double checks by the internal and the official Canada goose. As for the inconsistent identification results, NetEase Kaola declared that it would send the original of the goods to the Canadian Goose Headquarters for physical identification under the supervision of the notary, and said it would complain about the opacity of the Canadian Goose brand identification process.

After that, Ms. Xian contacted the Canadian Goose official again and asked why the two identifications of the same product had different results. The Canadian Goose official immediately apologized and replied. According to the email sent by Kaola on Netease, the two results were both "fake" after re identification. On January 15, NetEase Kaola issued a statement that it would send the goods to the Canadian goose designated agency for identification under the supervision of notaries, and publish the relevant results as soon as possible.

It is worth noting that the statement of "if it is identified as genuine, please ask consumers to make public apologies" put forward by Netease Kaola in a statement was deemed inappropriate.

Chen Yinjiang, deputy secretary-general of China Consumer Protection Law Research Association, said: "Netease Kaola has a strong position in terms of economic status, information possession, and the formulation of trading rules. Requiring consumers to apologize before the identification results are clear will put pressure on consumers, set barriers to protect their rights, and affect consumers' enthusiasm to question."

　 Netease Kaola was involved in 27 lawsuits

It is worth noting that this is not the first time that a similar dispute has occurred. Last June, Kaola.com, Netease, was dissatisfied that its products were identified as counterfeit products by the China Consumer Association and Estee Lauder, and once sued the China Consumer Association to the court. At present, the above case is still inconclusive.

It was also found through Tianyan search that Netease Kaola had involved in 27 legal proceedings and was subject to administrative punishment once, of which 22 were due to disputes over sales contracts, 2 were due to disputes over trademark infringement, and the other 2 were related to disputes over online shopping contracts.

On the Internet, I saw many posts complaining about the "fake sales" of Netease koalas, and some consumers believed that "koalas are all sold together with true and false products, and it is difficult to distinguish between true and false."

In December last year, China Consumer Association released a survey report on consumer awareness of the Electronic Commerce Law. The results show that nearly half of the respondents believe that "fake goods are not prohibited" is the most prominent problem in the e-commerce field. Among them, 70.6% of respondents have bought fake goods on e-commerce platforms.

How should we standardize the online shopping platform in the future? Chen Siyi, a lawyer from Hubei Penglai Law Firm, gave a suggestion, "First of all, e-commerce platform operators should review the qualifications of operators in the platform, establish registration files, and conduct regular reviews; second, for the commodities self operated by the platform, purchase review records should be strictly kept, and the source of each commodity should be clearly recorded. Once a fake is found, the platform can be asked to query it at the first time. "