CCP initiates proceedings against online shopping platform

While declaring ''Return Policy'' as most crucial aspects of online buying, the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has initiated proceedings against a renowned platform for online shopping in Pakistan for alleged involvement in deceptive marketing practices. According to the inquiry report of the CCP against online shopping website, Umair Ali (complainant) filed a complaint with the commission against online shopping website in Pakistan (Respondent) for alleged violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010 (Act) ie Deceptive Marketing Practices.
The Complainant alleged that the Respondent is an undertaking involved in distribution of false and misleading information while dealing with customers which is not only capable of harming the business interest of other undertakings in the similar business but also lack a reasonable basis, related to character, properties, or quality of its services. It has been alleged that the conduct of the Respondent, prima facie, amounts to deceptive marketing practices in terms of Section 10 of the Act.
Details revealed that the Respondent is a renowned platform for online shopping in Pakistan. The variety of products available on their website includes electronics, shoes, clothes, jewelry, cameras, etc. Upon registration on the website, the Respondent allows the user to use the platform for buying and selling.
The CCP said that consequently, in light of the discussion, various observations have been made. It was observed that the Respondent had presented sufficient reminders pertinent to importance of ''Seller Ratings'' around the website. However, the Complainant did not exert this option.
It was, however, observed that ''Return Policy'' is one of the most crucial aspects of online buying, whereas the Respondent''s website lacked sufficient and appropriate reminders pertinent to it. Due to this, the probability of buyers not being aware of the risks that are associated with online buying increases.
Furthermore, the Respondent has termed itself as a "mediator" in case a dispute arises. A mediator, by definition, has to ensure that an agreement is reached and a conclusion is made when a dispute arises. However, in case a dispute arises, the Respondent withdraws itself from all responsibilities. Moreover, the Respondent repeatedly asserted itself as a safe market place and a cooperative and helpful mediator, however, it failed to act accordingly. The Respondent has contradicted itself on many occasions and failed to provide appropriate and promised customer service. The Respondent gives constant surety to the user regarding safe buying on its website, whereas in the terms and conditions section, it withdraws itself from all responsibility. It may also be noted that while signing up, the Respondent does not make it necessary for the user to ''read and accept'' its terms and conditions. This further increases the probability of user deception.
Furthermore, the Respondent also asserts that it keeps a strong monitoring system pertinent to the sellers on the website and that it strictly scrutinizes sellers before allowing them to use the Respondent''s platform. Due to these reasons, a user through its first interaction with the Respondent''s website would assume it to be a safe market place with a strong buyer protection policy. However, this is not a true depiction of the reality as high risks are associated with online buying which the user should be clearly made aware of.
In addition, around the website, the Respondent claims that it has provision of abundant options that can be employed by a user pertinent to payments and shipping methods while carrying out a transaction. However, only one standard option is available to the customers regarding each category, ie, cash on delivery and standard shipping.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the fact that the Respondent gave confirmations to the Complainant pertinent to the characteristics and quality of the product and that the Respondent directed the Complainant to send the defaulted product to its address against its own terms and conditions, this conduct clearly falls in the definition of "Assisting Others". Hence, the onus of appropriate dispute resolution remains on the Respondent. Furthermore, it has been established that dispute resolution is also a vital aspect of online marketing, which in this case, was handled poorly. Such behavior is not only objectionable but it is also in contrast to the friendly and supportive impression the Respondent imparts on its website. The Respondent, thus, 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. Therefore, it is recommended that in the interest of the public at large, proceedings may be initiated against the Respondent under provisions of Section 30 of the Act for, prima facie, violation of Section 10 of the Act, in accordance with law.
The CCP report said that business ethics on part of the firms are extremely necessary. However, this responsibility does not liberate consumers from their obligations either. While processing a transaction, unless clearly hidden or deluded by the good and/or service provider, there is a responsibility on the consumers as well to educate themselves regarding all the aspects of the contract they are agreeing to before confirming the transaction. Such vigilance is especially necessary while dealing with innovating and evolving markets and products, CCP said.
It then also obligates the product/service provider to present clearly and conspicuously all the aspects of a transaction including but not limited to the character, price, properties, usefulness, warranties, return policies, terms and conditions, etc., in order to minimize disputes in the future. Furthermore, it also requires the product/service provider to follow all the claims and promises made by them through all mediums of communication they adopt to inform the existing and potential buyers. Therefore, it should now be evaluated whether the Seller, Complainant, and the Respondent carried out their responsibilities as required after agreeing to use the forum of website, CCP said.
Therefore, while using such a forum, the buyers also have the onus to explore the guidelines and requirements of the platform and the need to fully comprehend information available on the website before making any commitments.
However, as mentioned earlier, service providers, like the Respondent, also have the absolute compulsion to make clear and conspicuous disclosures pertaining to the terms and conditions and other necessary information that may impact the decision making process of a buyer. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has presented a comprehensive set of guidelines for online shopping websites, report added.