01 The New Regulations Are Finally Here, But Your Struggles Aren't Fully Solved
On February 1, 2026, the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Rules of Online Trading Platforms officially came into effect, explicitly prohibiting platforms from forcing merchants to accept "refund-only" policies.
It sounds like good news. But as an e-commerce seller, you need to know a harsh reality: the "temperature gap" after the new regulations took effect. In Q1 2026, arbitrary "refund-only" requests still topped the merchant complaint list at 34.39%.
Data Source: Dianshubao (Diansubao) E-commerce Complaint Report for Q1 2026
The new rules prohibit "mandatory refund-only," but do not​ ban "refund-only" itself. Platforms can still offer the refund-only option; they just can't force you to enable it. However, in actual implementation, platform rules vary drastically—some respond positively, others act slowly, creating an inconsistent pace.
More importantly, malicious refund tactics are also evolving. AI-generated defect photos, organized group fraud ("wool-pulling"), swapping shipping labels to return different items... The new regulations govern platform rules, but they cannot govern human intent.
Therefore, New Regulations Implemented ≠ Problem Solved. As a merchant, you still need a comprehensive defense system.
02 Five Core Points of the New Regulations: What Rights Have You Gained?
Issued jointly by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) and the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), these five core points directly impact your business rights:
[1] Platforms must not force "refund-only"
Platforms are prohibited from using rules to force or covertly force merchants to bear after-sales responsibilities such as "refund without return." Refund-only applies only​ to five statutory scenarios: unshipped orders, counterfeit goods, severe damage, spoiled fresh produce, and return costs far exceeding the product value. In all other cases, merchants have the right to refuse a refund-only request and demand a return-for-refund.
[2] Merchants enjoy the right to fair burden of proof
Platforms must fairly allocate the burden of proof among all parties when handling disputes and can no longer blindly trust the buyer's unilateral claims. Platforms are also required to establish mechanisms to identify malicious behaviors and dismiss complaints from "wool-pullers."
[3] Platforms must not force return shipping insurance
Return shipping insurance was designed to protect consumers but has been exploited by "wool-pullers" to profit from price differences (e.g., a 0.3 RMB premium yielding a 6–9 RMB payout). The new rules prohibit forced activation, giving merchants full autonomy.
[4] Platforms must not force promotions or "choose one from two"
Platforms cannot force merchants to join promotional campaigns or restrict them to operating on a single platform. You now have the freedom to sell across multiple platforms.
[5] Platforms must disclose the basis for penalties
When collecting liquidated damages or compensation, platforms must inform merchants of the calculation basis and method. They are prohibited from charging amounts that significantly exceed reasonable limits. You will no longer face arbitrary "fines."
In one sentence:​ The core logic of the new regulations is to return after-sales negotiation power to the merchants. Platforms can no longer "spend merchants' money to please consumers." However—rights are meaningless without solid evidence to back them up.
03 Three Real Cases: How Bad Was It Before the New Regulations?
Before the new regulations, the following three cases represented the harsh reality for countless e-commerce sellers:
Case 1: 1,380 "Refund-Only" Orders Shut Down a Quilt Factory
Wang Xiuqin, 65, ran a quilt factory in Shihezi, Xinjiang, for over 20 years. In late 2025, she invested over 3 million RMB to open 3 online stores. Within three months, she faced 1,380 malicious refund-only orders. Of 400,000 RMB in sales, only 200,000 RMB actually reached her account, resulting in a net loss of 200,000 RMB. The factory's cash flow broke, forcing it to cease operations.
A buyer named Yang used multiple pseudonyms and linked accounts to repeatedly claim "wrong size/weight," securing refunds while continuing to place orders—a "cyclic free-riding" scheme. Wang traveled 3,000 km to Henan to seek justice; Yang received 10 days of administrative detention. Yet, for the remaining thousand-plus small-amount malicious orders, there was no recourse.
Source: Tide News / Sina / Tencent, July 2026
Case 2: AI Photo Editing Used to Scam 16,000 RMB Worth of Fruit, Sentenced to 1 Year
Tan, a man from Hunan, used AI to batch-synthesize mold and rot marks onto photos of fresh durians and cherries, creating hyper-realistic defect evidence for refund-only claims. Over three months, he scammed 60 durians and 5 boxes of premium cherries (worth ~16,000 RMB), then resold the intact fruit via second-hand channels. He was sentenced to one year in prison for fraud—the first local AI-powered e-commerce fraud case.
Source: Legal Daily, July 2, 2026
Case 3: 6 Accounts Used for 331 "Refund-Only" Orders, Causing 54,000 RMB in Losses
A woman in Shandong exploited platform loopholes using 6 linked accounts to file 331 refund-only orders, costing a merchant over 54,000 RMB. Her tactic: mixing high- and low-value items, intercepting high-value shipments mid-transit for refund-only, then colluding with courier staff to swap shipping labels and send back cheap substitutes—illegally pocketing the difference.
Source: Securities Times, 2026
The Common Thread:​ Merchants lost because they lacked evidence.
Case 1: No shipping proof to counter "size insufficient" claims.
Case 2: Unable to detect AI-generated fake photos with the naked eye.
Case 3: No packing surveillance video to prove label swapping.
The law gives you rights, but without evidence, those rights are empty words.
04 Comparison of New Rules Across Four Platforms: Rules Aligned, Enforcement Isn't
In July 2026, Taobao, JD.com, Pinduoduo, and Douyin simultaneously rolled out tiered refund-only rules. Yet, enforcement standards vary wildly. One requirement, however, is consistent across all four platforms: video evidence.
Taobao:​ Shipping proof video
Douyin:​ Packing surveillance video
JD.com:​ Pre-shipping quality inspection video
Pinduoduo:​ Shipping video
Without video evidence, the negotiation rights granted by the new regulations are practically useless.
05 Three Hidden Risks Merchants Still Face
[Risk 1] The "Temperature Gap" in Enforcement
Rules on paper don't always translate to reality. Platforms act as both "lawmaker" and "referee." Some platforms updated their policies but not their automated systems, which still default to auto-refunding, while merchant appeal processes remain cumbersome.
[Risk 2] AI Fraud as a Rising Threat
The Tan case is just the tip of the iceberg. Online courses teaching "AI refund-only scams" are now being sold. While Taobao has launched an AI fake-image detection model, coverage and accuracy are still improving—merchants cannot rely 100% on platform-side detection.
[Risk 3] High Evidence Threshold
You must proactively provide complete, clear, and comparable video evidence.
Providing individual evidence for thousands of small orders is extremely time-consuming.
Merchants without a packing surveillance system simply cannot produce evidence.
The new rules fix "rule-level unfairness" but not "evidence-level asymmetry." A fraudster only needs one AI fake image; you need a full packing video. This cost asymmetry is the merchant's biggest pain point.
06 Why Packing Surveillance Is More Critical Than Ever Under the New Rules
Some ask: "If platforms are finally protecting merchants, is packing surveillance still necessary?"
The answer: It's more important than ever.
[1] Instant Self-Verification During Negotiation
Within the 48-hour negotiation window, when buyers see your complete packing video—product display, weighing data, sealing process, tracking number—they typically withdraw their refund-only claim. Video evidence is far more deterring than text.
[2] Countering AI Fake Images
AI can forge a static photo, but it cannot forge a continuous, dynamic packing video. When a buyer submits an AI fake, your video proves the item was intact, the weight matched, and the seal was perfect—giving platforms a reason to rule in your favor.
[3] Foundation for Legal Action
In police reports or lawsuits, packing videos are core evidence. Combined with tracking numbers and weighing data, they form an irrefutable chain of evidence to support fraud charges.
07 inboz Packing Surveillance: Your "Ammunition Depot" Under the New Regulations
The inboz packing surveillance system delivers exactly what merchants need most under the new rules: Evidence.
Four Core Capabilities:
[1] Auto-Record + Auto-Binding:​ Scan the tracking number, and the system automatically starts recording and binds the video to the order—zero extra steps for packers.
[2] Optical Zoom for Crystal-Clear Details:​ The inboz-Plus features an optical zoom lens that captures fine details like jewelry hallmarks, cosmetic seals, and apparel tags—countering "returning fakes for genuine items." (Far superior to digital zoom or overhead document cameras.)
[3] Scale Integration:​ Weight data is automatically embedded into the video, enabling one-click comparison between outbound and return weights. Counters tactics like "adding steel balls for weight" or "refilling empty bottles."
[4] One-Click Retrieval:​ Enter a tracking number to pull up the exact packing video in 3 seconds—no need to dig through footage manually during the critical 48-hour window.