To refund an amusement park ticket, do you have to prove that "my boyfriend is my boyfriend"? According to media reports such as, a few days ago, some consumers said that they canceled a travel trip to a resort due to illness, and when they refunded their boyfriends, they were asked by the ticketing platform to provide a paper version of the "couple relationship certificate". Regarding this matter, many netizens expressed outrageous, "How can the couple prove it?" "It's the same as proving that my dad is my dad." Soon after the incident was exposed, when the above proof could not be provided, the platform refunded the consumer involved in full amount.

In recent years, similar "strange certificates" have occurred from time to time in the consumer field, for example, some consumers are required to "issue a death certificate for fish" when claiming refunds, and some consumers are required to take a video to prove that they "did not receive it" when they have not received the goods.

Why are similar proofs so criticized?

On the one hand, consumers are often forced to fall into the dilemma of "no proof". Take the relationship certificate as an example, the subject of the first certificate is unknown - community, school or police station? Which unit can provide this service? Secondly, how to write the content of the proof, and what is the basis for supporting the evidence? Different from proving illness, work relationship, etc., the relationship between couples has strong emotional attributes and privacy, and it is difficult to issue so-called "official certificates" and "authoritative certificates".

On the other hand, "duplicate proof" and "circular proof" are testing consumers' bottom line. In the above incident, after the consumer provided a "clearly visible" couple photo and video as required, the platform still claimed that the materials did not meet the standards and must provide a paper certificate, which inevitably made people question: Does it need to be so troublesome to refund the ticket? Does the merchant want to return or do you want the consumer to retreat? Under such layers of increases, the cost of protecting consumers' rights is increasing, and their rights and interests are also being made difficult.

Objectively speaking, the buyer and the seller can reduce the losses caused by unilateral breach of contract by agreeing on reasonable refund conditions or compensation standards in the contract. However, if the threshold is too high and there are too many conditions, especially when the merchant sets refund conditions for consumers in the standard contract that exceed the general cognitive standards, the merchant's behavior will be suspected of aggravating the consumer's liability and infringing on the rights and interests of consumers.

It is worth noting that in this incident, when everyone asked who asked for the "strange proof", neither the platform nor the amusement park involved gave a clear answer, claiming that the other party's request would prevail. This inevitably gives people a sense of "kicking the ball" and "bullying customers".

From the perspective of market competition and development, nowadays, many businesses are improving the attitude, content and details of the service, actively acting, and even on how to "spoil" consumers increasingly "involution", such as seven days no reason to return, free trial, second refund, return at any time and so on have become the key selling points of related products and services, and have also become an important means to win the favor of consumers. In contrast, setting up obstacles for consumer refunds is actually turning the selling point into a pain point, and it is also a kind of self-destructive image and self-smashing signboard. In the long run, businesses must conform to the market trend, and make fine and considerate services a competitive advantage and the main selling point, so that consumers can buy with peace of mind, use comfortably, have fun, and return smoothly, which is the right way.

Chen Dandan

(Workers' Daily)