The hottest Jingdong Mall is accused of selling ex

  • Detail

JD mall was accused of selling expired skin care products, and the packaging date was inconsistent with the batch number

Mr. Feng bought Biotherm crystal rejuvenation essence on, which was confirmed by Biotherm Hong Kong customer service to be expired. For this reason, he sued Jingdong century Information Technology Co., Ltd. and L'Oreal (China) Co., Ltd., which are key to the importance of Beihe, on the grounds of fraud, and asked the two defendants to double the payment of 398 yuan and pay 1000 yuan of notary fees. At present, Chaoyang Court has accepted the case

Mr. Feng said that on December 1 last year, he bought two pieces of Biotherm essence produced by L'Oreal at a total price of 398 yuan. Mr. Feng received the goods the next day, but has not received the invoice so far. This product not only shortens the inspection period, but also the limited use period indicated in Chinese on the packaging box is March 1st, 2015. Worried about the authenticity and quality of the product, he asked Biotherm Hong Kong customer service for relevant information. According to the batch number printed on the product packaging box, the customer service staff informed that the production date of the product was January 22, 2009, and the warranty period was three years, that is, the service life of the product had expired on January 22, 2012

later, Mr. Feng asked about vibration simulation. There are different methods according to different purposes, such as resonance search, resonance residence, cyclic scanning, random vibration and stress screening. The answer is that the limited service life of the product is subject to the date marked on the bottle body. When Mr. Feng asked about the production date of the product, the customer service replied that it was unclear. When he further asked about the meaning of the product batch number, the customer service did not tell him

Mr. Feng said that he had complained to L'Oreal, but L'Oreal replied that it had never sold the product in Chinese Mainland, and denied having a cooperative relationship with the third-party store of JD mall. Mr. Feng said that he was still unable to confirm the authenticity and source of the product, but at least he could confirm that the cosmetics had exceeded the warranty period when they were sold. The behavior of the two defendants had constituted a fraud to consumers, and they should bear the legal responsibility. Mr. Feng asked the two defendants to return the payment of 398 yuan jointly and severally, and claimed for the loss of 398 yuan and the notarization fee of 1000 yuan

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI