In 2024, the "Refund Only" service has emerged as the norm across leading e-commerce platforms, streamlining the after-sales process and enhancing the consumer shopping experience. However, this service has also facilitated malicious refund practices, known colloquially as "wool-pulling," resulting in significant losses for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Initially rolled out by JD.com in 2014, the service was initially limited to self-operated products on the platform, aimed at minimizing return and exchange costs while boosting consumer satisfaction. Over the years, as competition in the e-commerce sector intensified, platforms like Pinduoduo, Taobao Tmall, and Douyin have progressively adopted the "Refund Only" service.

While this service undeniably brings convenience, it has also sparked numerous debates. Critics argue that it is an extreme measure by e-commerce platforms to attract consumers at the expense of merchants. Others, however, see it as a vital manifestation of consumer rights protection that must not be abused. So, is this service inherently flawed? The crux of the matter lies in how this rule is interpreted and implemented.

A well-structured "Refund Only" service can effectively protect consumer rights and elevate the shopping experience. Conversely, malicious exploitation of this service can severely harm merchants' interests and disrupt market order. Ultimately, the repercussions of abusing the "Refund Only" service could affect the entire e-commerce ecosystem, encompassing platforms, merchants, and consumers alike. Therefore, e-commerce platforms must establish equitable rules to balance the interests of all stakeholders and ensure the sustainable growth of the "Refund Only" service.