Nowadays, consumer activities are no longer confined by geographical boundaries. When disputes arise, however, differences in language and legal systems as well as complex complaint procedures often make it difficult for consumers to seek redress across borders. In recent years, the Consumer Council has received numerous complaints related to cross-border consumption, such as being faced with an excessive claim for damages when returning the rental car after a road trip, failing to repair or replace a faulty product purchased from a foreign online shop, and disputes arising from custom-made furniture ordered from the Mainland that did not meet expectations.
To strengthen consumer protection for cross-border consumption, the Council has entered into agreements with 36 consumer bodies across various regions, including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Macau and over 30 provinces and cities in the Mainland, to establish a complaint referral mechanism. Hong Kong consumers involved in disputes with traders operating in any of the regions above may lodge complaints with the Council upon returning to Hong Kong. With the complainant’s consent, the Council will assist in referring the case to the consumer body in the trader’s territory, which will then contact the trader for conciliation. The outcome will be relayed to the Council for notifying the complainant. Conversely, for consumers from any of the regions above involved in disputes in Hong Kong, their local consumer bodies may also refer the cases to the Council for follow-up. This referral mechanism not only provides consumers with a more convenient channel for lodging cross-border complaints but also helps enhance the efficiency of dispute resolution.
Case 1: Excessive Claim for Windscreen Damage in Car Rental in Thailand
The complainant went on a road trip in Thailand and booked a 5-day car rental service from Company A via an online platform, at a cost of THB5,000 (about HK$1,194). The rental agreement the complainant signed at the time of vehicle collection stated that if the renter did not purchase the Super Collision Damage Waiver (SCDW) from the designated insurance company, the maximum liability would be THB16,050 (about HK$3,832) in case the vehicle was damaged. However, Company A did not provide the complainant with compensation standards or actual charges for vehicle damage. Upon returning the vehicle, staff claimed that there was a chip the size of a rice grain on the front windscreen and, for the first time, presented a “compensation breakdown” document on a mobile phone, stating that the replacement cost for the windscreen of that vehicle model was THB15,000 (about HK$3,582). Including 7% VAT, the total compensation demanded was THB16,050 (about HK$3,832), which was the maximum liability stated in the agreement. The complainant questioned why the compensation standards were not disclosed at the time of collecting the vehicle but reluctantly made the payment due to his imminent flight and language barriers. Subsequently, the complainant suspected unfair trade practices as Company A had failed to provide complete compensation or repair standards at the time of vehicle collection yet charged the maximum amount upon return. The complainant contacted the Council upon returning to Hong Kong, requesting referral of the case to the Thailand Consumers Council.
Following the conciliation by the Council and the Thailand Consumers Council, Company A agreed to arrange a full refund to the complainant’s credit card account, and the case was satisfactorily resolved.
Case 2: Online Shop Unresponsive After Power Bank Became Faulty Within Warranty Period
The complainant, a Singapore resident, purchased a 20,000mAh magnetic power bank from the online shop of a Hong Kong Company B in August 2024. The product came with a 1-year warranty and was priced at SGD120 (about HK$722), with an additional SGD35 (about HK$210) shipping fee to Singapore. After approximately 6 months of use, the product failed to charge properly, and the issue persisted despite using different charging cables and sockets. According to the warranty terms, the complainant began contacting Company B via email in late March 2025 to request repair or replacement, and sent multiple follow-up emails, but received no response by June. As Company B was registered and operating in Hong Kong, the complainant sought assistance from the Consumers Association of Singapore to refer the case to the Council for conciliation.
After repeated attempts to contact Company B through different channels, the Council finally received a response from the company about 2 months later, stating that it had directly replied to the complainant and would arrange a full refund. The case was eventually resolved successfully.
Case 3: Dispute Over Refund for Custom-made Wardrobe in the Mainland Not Meeting Expectation
In 2021, the complainant ordered a custom-made bookcase from Furniture Shop C in Shenzhen. Satisfied with the quality, the complainant returned to the shop in 2024 to order a custom-made wardrobe. Staff later visited the complainant’s residence in Hong Kong to take measurements. At the time, the complainant requested that the wardrobe be made to the same specifications as the bookcase. No written confirmation of specifications was made on-site. Since the staff raised no objections, the complainant assumed mutual agreement had been reached and the wardrobe would feature 2.5cm and 3.2cm thick walnut panels for shelves and frames respectively, and six 2.2cm thick door panels, same as the bookcase. After measurements were taken, Furniture Shop C quoted RMB13,800 (about HK$15,081), which the complainant accepted and paid a deposit of RMB1,000 (about HK$1,093). The shop provided a handwritten order form stating that the wardrobe’s back panel was 1.2cm thick and the door panels were 2.2cm thick, with no mention of the thickness of other panels. Subsequently, the complainant received the design drawings and discovered that the thickness of the frame and shelves were only 2.2cm, which did not meet expectations. The complainant hence lodged a complaint with Furniture Shop C, reiterating the specifications requested during the measurement visit. The shop replied that the visit was solely for measuring the wardrobe space and the bookcase panels’ thickness was not measured. It further stated that replacing the panels with 3.2cm thick ones would require ordering special material and an additional cost of RMB900 (about HK$984). The complainant considered this unreasonable and sought assistance from the Council, requesting referral of the case to the Shenzhen Consumer Council.
Furniture Shop C explained to the Shenzhen Consumer Council that since measurements had been taken and design drawings provided, Shop C was not able to offer a full refund. After a prolonged conciliation process by the 2 Consumer Councils, the shop eventually agreed to refund half of the deposit, i.e. RMB500 (about HK$546). The complainant accepted the arrangement and collected the refund from the shop.
Consumers involved in cross-border consumption disputes are reminded to retain receipts, order screenshots, payment records and communication records with traders as evidence, and to attempt direct negotiation with the trader first. If negotiation fails, consumers may seek assistance from the consumer body in their place of residence. If the consumer bodies in the consumer’s place of residence and the trader’s territory have signed an agreement, the case may be referred under the mechanism for conciliation. The Council hopes to continue providing more support for cross-border consumers in future to safeguard consumer rights and foster a more reassuring consumption environment.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/588-cases
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.