More power to Pakistans proliferating, multi-million dollar online marketplace that is said to be growing exponentially. But in the instances where things go awry, customers unfortunately dont have an effective legal recourse, other than discretion of the same vendors. Due to the segments virtual nature, there is more scope for things to go awry for customers: receiving malfunctioning or damaged products, suffering delays, or finding the delivered product not quite the same as it was specified on the online storefront.
To be fair, the big-name local e-tailers are making efforts to secure and retain customer trust in this low-trust market. But that alone is not enough to ensure consumer protection, which requires an effective legal framework. A complaint thanks to which the competition watchdog has recently flagged a major online platforms after-sale service behavior serves as Exhibit A for those customers who have had to go through similar ordeal.
Last week, the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) reportedly issued a show cause notice to Kaymu.pk, the online platform that brings buyers and sellers together, for engaging in deceptive marketing practices. The complaint that led to the CCPs Enquiry Report (dated December 19, 2016) and the subsequent show-cause notice charges Kaymu of providing misleading information to customers. CCP has singled out Kaymus misleading impression of it being a safe marketplace, acting as a mediator for buyer-seller disputes, and providing abundant payment and shipping methods.
The enquiry report reads like an intriguing story. The complainant had ordered a wrist watch through Kaymu in November 2014. Interestingly, the customer was charged on delivery only two-thirds of the wrist watchs listed price, which was Rs1499. He accepted. But later, the customer discovered that the product was in poor condition and looked very different from the one on the website.
The complainant approached the seller but didnt find much audience there. He tried to return the product but the sellers whereabouts had suddenly become unknown. So he engaged Kaymu, which provided a slacked response for a couple of months. Eventually, Kaymu asked the customer to send them the product for replacement, which the customer did in March 2015. After that, Kaymu stopped responding to the complainants reminders without resolving the matter appropriately.
The CCP concluded in its enquiry report that while the buyer was negligent in going through the terms and conditions, Kaymu was also deficient in various respects.
For instance, the website lacked sufficient and appropriate reminders on the Return Policy and it did not make it necessary for users to read and accept its terms & conditions. Also, while Kaymu cast itself as a mediator on the website, it didnt act as such during this dispute. Besides, Kaymus dispute resolution process was in contrast to the friendly and supportive impression the Respondent imparts on its website.
Recommending a proceeding under Section 30 of the Competition Act, the enquiry report determined that Kaymu is not only involved in disseminating false/misleading information to the consumers that is lacking a reasonable basis, related to character, properties, and quality of its services but these actions also give it a competitive advantage over other undertakings in the same line of business leading it to prima facie violation of Section 10 (1) in terms of Section 10 2 (a) & (b) of the Act.
We dont know if the CCP proceedings will be enough to nudge e-tailers to better inform ordinary folk about the hidden/obscure fine-print before they click the purchase button. But any attention to such consumer protection issues is welcome. Also appreciated is CCPs interest in such matters, despite the commission receiving little substantive support from other branches of government
But it is time for a comprehensive legal framework that supports both the users and investors of digital services that link the online and offline space. More on that in a later column
Comments
Comments are closed.