Title: Who should pay for return shipping caused by a seller’s fraudulent advertising?

Question

Via an internet shopping mall, I bought a vacuum cleaner which was supposed to have strong suction power enough to inhale a golf ball, as advertised by the seller. After using the product, however, I realized the poor performance of the cleaner. (It barely inhaled even a watermelon seed.) Hence I sent my return request to the seller within two weeks from the arrival of the product. The seller asked me to pay for the return shipping. Do I have to bear the return shipping costs?

Answer

In case a product return has been caused by a seller’s fraudulent advertising, the seller shall pay for the return shipping. But please be noted that in order to demand the seller to bear the return shipping costs, the buyer needs to prove the seller’s fraudulent advertising activities on the subject internet shopping mall.

Article 17 (3) of the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce stipulates that if the contents of the goods are different from the contents of indication or advertisement, or have been performed contrary to the contents of the contract, the consumer may cancel the order within three months from the day the goods have been supplied, or within 30 days from the day he/she knew or could have known the fact.

The Act also states that in the abovementioned cases, the seller shall bear all return shipping costs. If the cancellation of the contract has been made without any faults by the seller and processed within seven days, however, the consumer should pay for the return shipping charges.