Amid the coronavirus outbreak, face masks and sanitizing products like alcohol-based hand rub have been under shortage. Thus, the emergence of posts promoting the sales of these items on purchasing services websites or social platforms could easily lead to panic-buying. However, in the first 3 months of this year, the Consumer Council has received over 760 complaints relating to these transactions, mainly related to late delivery and refund disputes. There were traders failing to process overwhelming orders in time and consumers failed to receive full refund on non-delivery of goods but still subject to handling charges. Furthermore, unscrupulous traders were suspected to open accounts purported to be purchasing services websites, and disappeared after payments were credited into their personal accounts. Although such desperate state was highly understandable, the Council calls on consumers to keep calm and refrain from making payments hastily before they can confirm the product quality, traders’ reputation, terms of sales and the authenticity of the trading platforms, so as to avoid any loss or even undue delay in taking their epidemic prevention measures.
The Council also urges traders to fulfill their social responsibilities to conduct business in accordance with their manpower capacity and stability of supply before accepting the orders. They should closely monitor the logistics and shipment, and to update consumers on the supplies and state of orders in a timely manner so as to allow consumers to plan ahead in such difficult time. At the same time, the Council reminds traders that they should provide clear and accurate product information and sales descriptions even though the products are sold through social platforms. Failure to do so may constitute a contravention of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
Case 1: Opened a social account as a pretext for selling goods and lost contact after receiving payment via QR code making it difficult to seek redress
In early February, a complainant found a post on purchasing website A, offering the sale of Japanese face masks. The message posted on the social platform by website A indicated that the face masks worth $300 a box would be available in mid-February. The complainant, in urgent need of face masks, made payment immediately via QR code of the registered mobile payment platform provided by website A. After one week, website A replied to the complainant’s queries about the delivery that the goods would arrive on 20 February at the latest. Unsuspecting of any scam, the complainant kept waiting for the arrival of the masks. In late February, the complainant discovered that website A no longer updated its social posts, and her attempts to send messages to the website also failed. The social account was later deleted altogether, so the complainant turned to the Council for assistance.
After reviewing the related communication records, the Council found that only the account name of the vendor was shown on the social platform, without any traces of the business and contact information. Furthermore, the payment was made into a personal bank account via mobile payment platform which was classified as a personal transaction and hence difficult for conciliation. While being aware of the difficulty in making claims, the complainant was worried that the vendor might repeat the scam and agreed to refer her case to the police for further investigation.
Case 2: Overwhelmed by the large number of orders causing ‘currently in-stock’ alcohol sanitizer undelivered for a long time
In early February, a complainant saw a social post from Company B selling Japanese alcohol sanitizer labelled as ‘currently in-stock’, with delivery time from around 3 to 5 days. She then ordered 4 bottles that totally cost $385 including the delivery fee. However, after waiting for 2 weeks, the complainant failed to see any update on the order status and no further message was delivered on the social platform by the company. The complainant had tried various means to contact Company B but in vain. Moreover, she found other consumers encountering similar problems left comments on the company’s fan page to enquire about the status of their orders. Even though the complainant recognized that the amount she had paid was insignificant, she reported the case to the Council in fear of falling victim to deception.
The Council was not successful in reaching Company B by phone. However, the company replied and apologized via email later, explaining that the delay was due to the recent surge in orders coupled with inadequate manpower. Upon receipt of the Council’s letter, Company B immediately delivered the goods to the complainant and the case was resolved.
Case 3: No delivery date set for an order of Korean face masks but refund is subject to 3% handling fee
In mid-January, a complainant found on a social platform a sales post indicating that any order for Korean face masks would arrive from mid to end of February. So he followed the instructions and paid $468 by credit card for 6 boxes. In early February, the company posted an assurance on the social platform that the expected arrival date of the goods remained unchanged. It further said that customers who would not wish to wait could apply for a refund before mid-February. Should the company fail to deliver the goods eventually, a 3% handling fee would be imposed in mid-March. The complainant was inclined to wait for the delivery and so did not apply for the refund.
In late February, Company C delivered a post explaining that since the supply of face masks was very tight in Korea, it was anticipated that the goods could not arrive in Hong Kong before March, but would try to seek help from other suppliers. The complainant also found there were many other desperate consumers shared his same experience. Company C all along failed to provide any record of ordering masks from the manufacturer, he also felt annoyed by the fact that although Company C had previously stated that if it could not deliver the masks, there would be a refund with a handling fee involved, the complainant considered the arrangement unreasonable as customers who failed to receive the goods should not bear the 3% handling fee for Company C’s inability to meet its pledge.
In its email response, Company C emphasized that the deduction of 3% handling fee for refund had been stated clearly on the sales post which also stipulated the refund arrangement for the Korean masks. Owing to the large number of refund forms being processed for the time being and the complainant’s failure to hand in the refund form before the deadline, refund for the complainant would only be processed after 15 March.
The Council reminds consumers again to carefully assess and verify the messages and information disseminated through various channels, and not to believe in any unconfirmed rumors. Consumers should also pay attention to the following when purchasing epidemic protection products via social platforms:
- Check whether the trader has listed the name, business address and contact information of the account holder on the social platform, examine the length of time the account has been established, as well as make reference to related sales posts and comments/reviews. Consumers should as far as possible choose reputable traders offering more comprehensive business information and also with physical store(s);
- Read the descriptions of goods and terms of sales in detail, especially about the expected product arrival date, the refund arrangement in the event of late delivery and the handling fee incurred. Consumers should also keep screenshots of the respective posts as evidence in case of any disputes;
- Goods in stock can generally be delivered within a shorter period of time, but the actual arrival time of pre-ordered goods may be affected by factors such as transportation and customs clearance and can hardly be predicted. Therefore, customers shopping for urgently needed items should ponder carefully whether they should opt for pre-ordered merchandise;
- Although mobile payment service is convenient, it is not so easy to ascertain whether the registered service belongs to a business account or a personal account. On the contrary, the account number and the name of the account holder are shown through bank transfer. In addition, in case of non-delivery, credit card and some payment platforms have chargeback mechanism as an redress means.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.