According to reports, Ms. Sun, a citizen of Nanjing, Jiangsu, recently reported that on May 5, she borrowed a "search for electricity" shared charging treasure in the Nanjing Six Dynasties Museum, and returned it on time after using 25 hour, it is reasonable to only need to pay 1 yuan, but the next morning showed that 5 yuan would be deducted. Strangely, when returning the charging treasure, Ms. Sun deliberately waited until the charging treasure was inserted into the charging cabinet and confirmed that the indicator light was back on before leaving. Ms. Sun wondered, why is the shared charging treasure still billed after it is returned?
The consumer has obviously returned the shared charging treasure according to the procedure, but due to the operation failure of the charging treasure system, the system did not accept the return of the confirmed consumer in time, but has been in a billing state, which has led to the system's random charging and overcharging, resulting in the misunderstanding and wrongful behavior of consumers. The unreasonable billing of the shared charging treasure will bring burden and trouble to consumers, and consumers in a weak position often need to negotiate and communicate with the operating enterprise many times in the process of rights protection, even if the final rights protection is successful, it will consume a certain amount of time and energy, and even get angry. Sometimes, consumers' rights protection demands have not been recognized by the operating enterprises, and they will fall into a deadlock in rights protection, and some consumers may not be aware of the problem of being overcharged, or give up their rights protection for various reasons after realizing it.
The shared charging treasure system is faulty, but consumers spend more money, this algorithm is unfair and unreasonable to consumers, and violates the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. According to the law of market economy and the service contract between the operating enterprise and the consumer, the fees of the enterprise must be consistent with the services it provides, and how many services the enterprise provides, it can charge the corresponding fee according to the agreed or clearly marked price, and the enterprise cannot charge less for more services, let alone just charge for no service. After the return of the consumer, the shared charging treasure system is still billing, and the total amount of billing far exceeds the actual service amount of the enterprise and the actual consumption of the consumer, which violates the laws of the market economy and the service contract.
According to the Law on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Consumers, consumers enjoy the right to fair trade, and when purchasing goods or receiving services, consumers have the right to obtain fair trading conditions such as quality assurance, reasonable prices, correct measurement, etc., and have the right to refuse forced trading by business operators. Obviously, the shared charging treasure operator has more timing and more billing due to system failure, which is a typical measurement error, which violates consumers' right to know and fair trade, and also infringes on consumers' property rights.
In fact, the problem that the system still charges after the return of the shared charging treasure is not an individual problem, but a frequent problem. In recent years, many consumers have encountered unreasonable charges for shared charging treasures, have played games with operating enterprises, and have launched complaints or complaints about this, and the media has also exposed it.
It is time to properly treat the infringement disease of the shared charging treasure "good borrowing and difficult to return", and the treatment of the disease requires the participation of multiple responsible subjects to prescribe medicine. Market supervision departments and consumer associations should unblock complaint and reporting channels, improve disposal efficiency, rely on laws and facts to support consumers' rights protection appeals, and take measures such as interviews, time-limited rectification, exposure and warning for shared charging treasure operating enterprises with more complaints, such as suspected of using the system to overcharge and suspected of fraud, that is, initiate a case investigation procedure and strictly pursue responsibility.
The author suggests that market supervision departments, consumer associations or courts may consider making the operating enterprise bear the burden of proof reversal in the process of handling such consumer disputes - if consumers question or believe that the enterprise still charges after the return of the shared charging treasure, or there are other overcharging problems, the enterprise provides evidence of correct system measurement and reasonable billing, and the enterprise cannot provide or the evidence provided is insufficient, that is, it is considered that the problem of overcharging exists, supports consumers' demands, and makes the enterprise bear adverse legal consequences. In this way, it can reduce the burden of proof on consumers, reduce the cost of consumer rights protection, and be fairer to consumers, and can also force enterprises to enhance their sense of self-discipline, standardize business behavior, improve management mechanisms, and reduce problems such as "good borrowing and difficult return" of charging treasures from the source.
After discovering the problem of overbilling, consumers must actively protect their rights in a timely manner through communication with enterprises, complaints and reports to market supervision departments or consumer associations, and lawsuits in court, so as to transmit the pressure of counter-supervision to enterprises. (Beijing Youth Daily, Li Yingfeng)