不良銷售商界痼疾 冷靜期保障消費者

<轉載自2018年4月20日 明報 社評>

消費者委員會建議對兩類交易模式和3個行業，強制實施冷靜期制度，以更大程度上保障消費者權益，日前，政府已經表示將會就冷靜期立法，因此，以冷靜期應對五花八門的不良銷售手法，在各方爭取逾10年計之後，終於有進展。不過，落實冷靜期能否有效保障消費者，還須看立法細節會否對業界有太多讓步；另外，網絡世界催生新營商模式，往後發展仍是未知之數，惟今次冷靜期立法將不規管網購，會否成為漏洞，值得關注。

美容健身時光共享 不肖業者神憎鬼厭

這些年，一些行業銷售手法充滿誤導甚至欺騙，不少消費者因為不知就裏而蒙受損失，其中美容、健身和時光共享3個行業，涉及預繳式服務合約，受害者損失動輒以萬元、甚至10萬元計；這些行業銷售人員以高壓、脅迫手法行事，說明單靠業界自律，無法遏制不肖業者的惡行。約10年前，諮詢現行《商品說明條例》時，原本包括設置冷靜期，因為商界反對，政府在條例草案將之抽起，轉而推動以自願方式冀業界自律。總體而言，在保險以至曾經備受指摘的電訊業，自願實施冷靜期取得一定成效，惟美容等行業不單未見改善，從消委會接獲的投訴，反而有變本加厲之勢。

根據消委會數字，過去5年，美容、健身、時光共享3個行業，消費者投訴其銷售手法共3701宗，佔預繳消費行業總投訴63%，涉及金額達1億3000多萬元，顯示這些年有數千人受害，規管迫切。至於非應邀合約涉及街頭銷售，消費者根本沒有心理準備購買相關產品，即使非應邀銷售在消費者住所進行，由於消費者不能選擇離開，面對的心理壓力會更大；這兩種情况，消費者較容易作出非自願和非理性交易決定，冷靜期可增加保障其權益。遙距交易設立冷靜期則涉及資訊不對稱，可讓消費者在貨不對辦情况下取消交易及取回付款。為免引起太大反彈，不採取跨行業規管，針對這3個行業和兩個交易模式設立冷靜期，算是對焦。

商界反對冷靜期，認為損害了營商環境。事實上，不單成熟經濟體例如歐美、英國等，早有冷靜期之設，周邊地區例如新加坡、台灣、韓國亦如是，內地作為新興經濟體亦設有冷靜期；從保障消費者權益出發，其他經濟體都可以做，認為香港實施則會對營商環境帶來負面影響，並無說服力。可以說，從歷史到現實，香港就冷靜期保障消費者權益，落後於其他經濟體，也未能對應不良銷售手法坑害消費者的現實，因此，政府立法規管，對於消費者只是遲來的保障。

一如所料，受影響業界已經反彈，例如有美容業界認為，當局貶損了美容業的形象，讓市民誤以為業界都是幹着同樣勾當，對他們不公道。將被立法規管3個行業，部分業者銷售手法之神憎鬼厭，已經成為公害，正當經營業者都不以為然，現實是既然自律無效，只能他律以匡正。正當業者應該歡迎立法規管，因為不良銷售手法堵絕之後，無論是美容、健身、時光共享業者，只要正當行銷，不用繼續被害群之馬連累，屆時業界形象自然重回正面。

立法成效視乎細節 不管網購或成漏洞

不過，冷靜期與保障消費者權益，並無必然關係，因為魔鬼在細節。從業界反應看來，他們或會尋求從技術層面使冷靜期成為無牙老虎，例如有美容業界表示顧客購買服務，以信用卡繳費，若顧客在7日內取消交易，則信用卡退款安排，以至員工可獲佣金計算等，都會出現問題，若業界為此撥出一筆準備金，會增加負擔，特別是對一些小本經營者而言，影響更大云云。諸如此類技術操作問題，預期業界都會提出，意圖影響立法。政府須堅持保障消費者權益為首要考慮，對業界無理要求，須嚴予拒絕，絕對不能作無原則讓步。

另外，消委會建議遙距交易設立冷靜期，但是網購除外，日後政府立法會否處理網購則未知。網購是遙距交易一部分，歐洲和韓國等都有規管，讓消費者在資訊不對稱、貨不對辦情况下，取消交易及取回付款。消委會以跨境執法等技術問題，未建議冷靜期規管網購，而非從原則角度考慮，會否成為漏洞，值得注意。網絡世界塑造電子商貿，商機無限，交易模式日新月異，目前確實較難準確實施規管；不過，有一點可以確定，就是網購涉及的「資訊不對稱」，將會愈來愈多觸及消費者，消委會漠視這個原則角度，而以技術問題不建議規管，很大可能是一個紕漏，政府在立法時，應該考慮予以補正。

Protect consumers with cooling-off period

TO guarantee more protection of consumers' rights, the Consumer Council proposes to impose a system of mandatory cooling-off period targeting two modes of transaction and three industries. The government has said earlier that it would impose a cooling-off period by way of legislation. In other words, after over a decade of appeal from various sectors to introduce a cooling-off period as a means to tackle numerous types of undesirable sales practices, finally there is some progress. However, whether the implementation of a cooling-off period is able to protect consumers effectively depends on whether the government would concede too much to the concerned industries in the details of the legislation. In the meantime, the cyber world has given rise to new ways of doing business, the future development of which remains unknown. The recent proposal on legislation does not include online shopping. It merits concern whether it would become a loophole.

According to figures of the Consumer Council, over the last 5 years, there have been a total of 3,701 complaints on sales practices against the three industries of the beauty service, the fitness service and timeshare, representing 63% of total complaints against all prepaid services. The total amount involved was as much as $130 million and there were a few thousand victims. Unsolicited transactions involve sales activities on the street where the consumers are psychologically unprepared to buy the products in question. When unsolicited sales happen in the homes of consumers, the psychological pressure for the consumers is even greater because they cannot leave. In these two situations, consumers are more inclined to make an involuntary and irrational decision to buy. A cooling-off period can better protect consumers' rights. A cooling-off period is necessary for distance transactions because it involves information asymmetry. It would allow consumers to cancel a contract and be refunded if they do not find the product in accordance with what is advertised. To prevent causing any overreaction, the proposal of establishing a cooling-off period does not call for any cross-sector regulation — it will only target three industries and two modes of transaction. One could say that the proposal is sufficiently focused.

However, a cooling-off period does not necessarily result in the protection of consumers' rights because the devil is in the details. The response of the industries concerned shows that they may seek to turn the cooling-off period into a toothless tiger at the technical level. The government must insist that the first priority is protecting consumers' rights. It should sternly turn down the unfair demand of those industries and should absolutely refuse to make any unprincipled concession to them.

In addition, the cooling-off period proposed by the Consumer Council regarding distance transactions has exempted online shopping. It is unknown if the government will tackle online shopping in future legislation. Online shopping is a kind of distance transaction and it is regulated in Europe and South Korea. Instead of considering it as a matter of principle, the Consumer Council cites technical problems such as cross-border law enforcement for why it has not proposed using a cooling-off period to regulate online shopping. Whether this will become a loophole merits concern. The cyber world has given rise to digital commerce and created unlimited business opportunities. The mode of transaction changes rapidly over time. It is true that it is difficult now to implement regulation precisely. However, there is one thing that we can be certain of. Online shopping involves "information asymmetry" and it is reaching out to more and more consumers. The Consumer Council has ignored this perspective of principle and proposed not to regulate it for technical reasons. This could very well be a shortcoming that the government should consider rectifying in the course of legislation.

不良銷售商界痼疾 冷靜期保障消費者

消費者委員會建議對兩類交易模式和3個行業，強制實施冷靜期制度，以更大程度上保障消費者權益，日前，政府已經表示將會就冷靜期立法，因此，以冷靜期應對五花八門的不良銷售手法，在各方爭取逾10年計之後，終於有進展。不過，落實冷靜期能否有效保障消費者，還須看立法細節會否對業界有太多讓步；另外，網絡世界催生新營商模式，往後發展仍是未知之數，惟今次冷靜期立法將不規管網購，會否成為漏洞，值得關注。

根據消委會數字，過去5年，美容、健身、時光共享3個行業，消費者投訴其銷售手法共3701宗，佔預繳消費行業總投訴63%，涉及金額達1億3000多萬元，顯示這些年有數千人受害。至於非應邀合約涉及街頭銷售，消費者根本沒有心理準備購買相關產品，即使非應邀銷售在消費者住所進行，由於消費者不能選擇離開，面對的心理壓力會更大；這兩種情况，消費者較容易作出非自願和非理性交易決定，冷靜期可增加保障其權益。遙距交易設立冷靜期則涉及資訊不對稱，可讓消費者在貨不對辦情况下取消交易及取回付款。為免引起太大反彈，不採取跨行業規管，針對這3個行業和兩個交易模式設立冷靜期，算是對焦。

不過，冷靜期與保障消費者權益，並無必然關係，因為魔鬼在細節。從業界反應看來，他們或會尋求從技術層面使冷靜期成為無牙老虎。政府須堅持保障消費者權益為首要考慮，對業界無理要求，須嚴予拒絕，絕對不能作無原則讓步。

另外，消委會建議遙距交易設立冷靜期，但是網購除外，日後政府立法會否處理網購則未知。網購是遙距交易一部分，歐洲和韓國等都有規管。消委會以跨境執法等技術問題，未建議冷靜期規管網購，而非從原則角度考慮，會否成為漏洞，值得注意。網絡世界塑造電子商貿，商機無限，交易模式日新月異，目前確實較難準確實施規管；不過，有一點可以確定，就是網購涉及的「資訊不對稱」，將會愈來愈多觸及消費者，消委會漠視這個原則角度，而以技術問題不建議規管，很大可能是一個紕漏，政府在立法時，應該考慮予以補正。