Tag: claim

  • Over Half Of South Korean Consumers Foret Refunds For Counterfeit Online Purchases, Cites Complex Procedures

    Over Half Of South Korean Consumers Foret Refunds For Counterfeit Online Purchases, Cites Complex Procedures

    Over half of South Korean consumers who inadvertently buy counterfeit products online do not pursue refunds, according to a recent survey by the Korea Consumer Agency. The respondents pointed to complex refund procedures and nominal sums involved as the main reasons for not seeking recompense.

    Consumer Responses and Counterfeit Products

    The survey, which included 1,000 consumers using eight leading online platforms, revealed that 58.6% of those who unintentionally bought counterfeit goods did not request a refund. Reasons given were that the refund process was too intricate or time-consuming (60.4%), or that the purchased items were of low value or indistinguishable from genuine products.

    The most frequently bought counterfeit items were bags, with 38.8% of consumers knowingly purchasing them. Shoes, however, were the most common accidental purchase, with 43.8% of consumers having inadvertently bought counterfeit footwear.

    Interestingly, many of the consumers who intentionally bought counterfeit products showed a lack of awareness about intellectual property rights. Almost half of them stated that they were unaware of, or unconcerned about, any possible issues.

    Responsibility and Complaints

    When asked who should bear the responsibility for counterfeit goods, 45.4% of the respondents blamed the sellers. Online platforms came second at 37.3%, while 17.3% of consumers held themselves accountable.

    The Korea Consumer Agency also examined 1,572 consumer complaints lodged between 2022 and February 2025. Handbags were the most frequently reported counterfeit items (21%), followed by shoes, cosmetics, audio devices, and clothing. The majority of complaints involved luxury brands, along with specific products such as Dyson hair dryers and Apple earphones.

    Price Comparisons and Seller Practices

    An analysis of price comparisons revealed further risks. On platforms like AliExpress and Temu, 72.5% of examined products were listed for less than 20% of their official market prices. Instagram and Naver Band also displayed similar steep discounts for over half of their items, with descriptors such as “mirror-grade leather” or “authentic-level” being used. Many sellers used private or external channels, which complicates monitoring efforts.

    Several platforms, including Naver Band, AliExpress, Coupang, and Temu, were criticised by the agency for their lack of clear instructions on how to report counterfeit items. Instead, they necessitated individual inquiries for each case.

    Call to Action

    The agency recommended that authorities and businesses augment their efforts to curb the sale of counterfeit goods. This includes limiting the use of misleading language on social media and enhancing transparency in reporting procedures.

    Questions & Answers

    What is the most common counterfeit item purchased intentionally in South Korea?
    Bags were the most common counterfeit items purchased on purpose, according to the survey.

    Who do consumers believe is most responsible for the sale of counterfeit goods?
    45.4% of respondents believe that sellers are the most responsible for counterfeit items.

    What measures has the Korea Consumer Agency suggested to combat counterfeit sales?
    The agency has suggested strengthening actions against counterfeit sales, restricting the use of deceptive terms on social media, and enhancing the transparency of reporting procedures.

  • Samsung Australia fined $14 million over false water-resistance claims

    Samsung Australia fined $14 million over false water-resistance claims

    Samsung Australia admitted to misleading buyers of some of its ‘Galaxy’ phones about the water-resistance level, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) said. The regulator had first sued the company in July 2019.

    Samsung Australia said in a statement that this was not an issue in its newer, current models.

    The regulator said between March 2016 and October 2018, the company ran in-store and social media advertisements that claimed the phones could be used in pools or sea water.

    The ACCC, however, received hundreds of complaints from users saying the smartphones did not function properly or even stopped working entirely after being exposed to water.

    The claims “promoted an important selling point for these Galaxy phones. Many consumers who purchased a Galaxy phone may have been exposed to the misleading ads before they made their decision to purchase a new phone,” said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

    Samsung and the ACCC agreed that changes the company had made to newer models of the smartphones launched in Australia from March 2018 did not face such risks from water exposure, the company said.

  • Huawei CFO’s Lawyers Refute U.S. Claims with HSBC Document

    Huawei CFO’s Lawyers Refute U.S. Claims with HSBC Document

    Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers claim that HSBC’s internal documents contradict U.S. claims that could result in extradition from Canada.

    HSBC’s own records reflected Huawei’s continued control over dealings with Iran-linked Skycom, Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers told a British Columbia court, including control over its accounts held at the British lender.

    According to Meng’s lawyer Mark Sandler, HSBC had conducted risk assessments with full knowledge of Huawei’s relationship with Skycom, adding that the latter’s financial statements were even included in a report on the Huawei account to the bank’s head office.

    We’re now in a different universe, Sandler said at the hearing yesterday. There is no plausible case for committal.

    Meng is approaching the final round of extradition hearings scheduled for August.

    If admitted by the court, the HSBC documents which were obtained in a deal overseen by a Hong Kong court in April will be usable for the hearing.

    Acting on behalf of the U.S. in the case, lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada have yet to respond to the submissions.