Global Lords: I Have Information System-Chapter 520 - 370: A Girl’s Nightmare, Castle Night 6

Regarding the recent penalty on Yonghui Cloud Innovation, most netizens expressed that undisclosed charges are unreasonable and criticized the meal delivery platforms for also defaulting to charge packaging fees.

In response, Chen Yinjiang believes that companies have operating costs and, as long as they do not violate existing laws, may charge reasonable costs, with the key being allowing consumers to make choices.

Should it be refunded?

Currently, in the "YH Yonghui Life+" mini program’s packaging fee section, a statement is presented in a second-level menu, stating that Yonghui Supermarket attaches great importance to the issue of "charging a 1 yuan packaging fee" and is urgently optimizing product packaging services and fee rules. They sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused to consumers and the resulting public attention.

From this statement, it can be seen that after being fined, Yonghui Cloud Innovation has realized its mistake and will make corrections. However, possibly due to technical reasons, the modified version was not online as of 10 p.m. on August 10. When the reporter checked again on the afternoon of August 11, the mini program had been adjusted to remove the packaging fee.

Simultaneously, Yonghui Cloud Innovation also stated that according to the relevant laws and policies of the national "plastic limit order," Yonghui is obliged to promote and use degradable packaging bags. This implies that the packaging bags used by Yonghui should be degradable environmental bags.

The reporter consulted suppliers on the 1688 website and learned that the wholesale price of commonly used single-sided single-color large degradable plastic bags in supermarkets is about 0.1 yuan each. This means that, excluding shipping costs, the 1 yuan packaging fee charged to consumers by "YH Yonghui Life+" is 9 times higher than the cost price.

Regarding the 1 yuan charged to consumers, the Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee proposed that consumers’ legal rights have been violated, and the involved company is obliged to correct the mistake and compensate or reimburse consumers.

If Yonghui indeed recognizes that "charging a 1 yuan packaging fee without consumer consent" is wrong, they should consider returning this 1 yuan to consumers.

"Administrative penalties and civil compensation are two different matters; administrative penalties cannot replace civil compensation." Chen Yinjiang also believes that since the regulatory authorities have identified the 1 yuan packaging fee as being charged through illegal means or as a method of infringing consumers’ legal rights, consumers have the right to be compensated according to the law. Even if not compensated double, they should at least proactively return the collected 1 yuan packaging fee.

Experts also suggested that the refund process should be automatically completed by the "YH Yonghui Life+" backend, as consumers generally won’t specifically seek a supermarket to return 1 yuan, and using technical means for bulk refunds is not difficult.

On August 11, Yonghui Supermarket informed the Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee that they would proactively refund the 1 yuan packaging fee to consumers through the mini program.

Where did it go wrong?

Was there a cost consideration in "YH Yonghui Life+" charging a 1 yuan packaging fee? Possibly, but not significant, and the company can internally absorb it. After all, its community fresh food peers and major e-commerce platforms, even many individual sellers on Taobao, often do not charge consumers a packaging fee, at most a shipping fee. The vast Yonghui Supermarket could not be incapable of affording the cost of packaging bags.

Was there a thought of making a little extra money? Possibly. The competition in community e-commerce is so fierce, and various subsidies have already squeezed profits thin. Quietly charging consumers an extra 1 yuan per order, 200,000 orders in two months, adds up to 1.2 million yuan a year. The product manager might be reluctant to give up this income, but Yonghui Supermarket should not do such accounting with consumers.

The most likely reason Yonghui Supermarket cannot let go of the 1 yuan packaging fee is that this old supermarket, in transitioning online, is still burdened with the mindset of offline merchants, not overcoming the inertia of thinking.

Like most traditional supermarkets, Yonghui Supermarket has consistently charged for packaging bags offline. Offline, a large bag costs 1 yuan, online it also costs 1 yuan, which might be described as "same price online and offline." But the difference lies in that during offline shopping, consumers have the right to choose; many consumers will even bring their own shopping bags, whereas online consumers are deprived of the choice, defaulting to buying.

More importantly, in the online shopping scenario, for the past few years, the market price for packaging bags has been almost free, and "YH Yonghui Life+" broke this precedent without providing services surpassing its peers, easily causing consumer resistance. Perhaps this was something "YH Yonghui Life+" didn’t fully consider when originally designing the packaging fee.

Merchants face cost pressures when transitioning to new business models, supporting the development of new business forms, and from this perspective, as long as they do not violate current laws, they may reasonably charge for costs. However, in this process, they must truly ensure consumers’ rights to be informed and to choose.

Whether packaging must be charged for is also worth discussing. Some consumers suggest that supermarkets can deliver goods without plastic bags, using cloth bags to deliver goods.

Because hence the scientific reasoning

No one saves you when you fall into the sea