People's Livelihood Investigation Bureau | Xiaohongshu "Avoidance Posts" - People Are Avoiding Them Instead

Beijing, January 12 (Reporter Zuo Yuqing) - By the end of 2025, the post "Lijiang publicly issues a letter calling on Xiaohongshu to avoid sensitive content during its review process" has become a trending topic.

The letter from the Lijiang Ancient City District Culture and Tourism Bureau regarding requesting Xiaohongshu platform to strengthen information review, supervision, and monitoring in the wedding photography sector in Lijiang City directly points out that there are cases on the Xiaohongshu platform where consumers use false "warning posts" and "exposure posts" to threaten companies into refunding their money.

In response, some argue that the platform's content review mechanism has loopholes, giving individual consumers the opportunity to pressure merchants through "warning posts"; others believe that consumers have the right to comment, and merchants should reflect on their own service quality.

Why did the "avoidance post" become the "avoidance post" itself? China News Network's "People's Livelihood Investigation Bureau" conducted an investigation.

The merchant stated, "We haven't had a single successful appeal on Xiaohongshu regarding our warning posts."

"The number of false warning posts on Xiaohongshu increased significantly starting in October 2024."

Peng Xin (pseudonym) has been working in the wedding photography industry in Lijiang for six years. In his memory, wedding photography clients used to mainly come from platforms such as Meituan and Wedding.com. In recent years, platforms like Xiaohongshu and Douyin have risen rapidly and become the main battleground for attracting clients.

While platforms bring traffic, they also breed new problems. As a "product recommendation" platform, Xiaohongshu's "avoidance posts" (posts warning against buying or selling products) attract user attention. However, some merchants told reporters that besides genuine consumer reviews, some of these posts exaggerate facts and maliciously defame consumers, and merchants often face difficulties in appealing against such posts.

According to Peng Xin's recollection, a client once chose a wedding photography package priced at 21,000 yuan, but on the third day after the wedding, after successfully receiving all the products, the client requested a refund of 5,000 yuan, claiming that they were not satisfied with the photos.

Peng Xin told reporters that the client had signed a satisfaction agreement and raised no objections at any stage of the shoot. He initially refused to refund the money, but the client subsequently posted a lengthy negative review on Xiaohongshu (a Chinese social media platform). After a week of fruitless appeals, Peng Xin finally agreed to refund the client and asked them to delete the warning post.

According to Peng Xin, warning posts tend to attract more traffic and attention. Therefore, during the lengthy appeal process, these posts may have already spread, leading many potential customers to choose to "avoid" such posts. In this situation, paying to settle the matter often becomes a reluctant choice for businesses.

He also told reporters that in 2025, he had handled more than 30 posts warning against certain content. Compared with other platforms, Xiaohongshu's appeal process is not smooth. "When we appeal on other platforms, the platform will at least contact us and verify the evidence, and there is about a 30% to 50% chance of a successful appeal. But on Xiaohongshu, no one pays attention to the evidence we submit for appeal. In 2025, we did not have a single successful appeal against a post warning on Xiaohongshu."

According to Peng Xin's rough estimate, his store received more than 1,000 wedding photography orders in 2025, with an average order value of about 17,000 yuan. The amount of money that was forced to be refunded due to the "avoidance posts" reached more than 200,000 yuan, and the indirect losses caused by customers canceling their reservations after seeing the "avoidance posts" amounted to more than one million yuan.

Regarding the controversy sparked by the "avoidance post," the reporter sent an email to Xiaohongshu inquiring about the matter. As of press time, Xiaohongshu has not yet responded.

Consumer: "Having no objections during the shooting process doesn't mean I'm truly satisfied."

The fact that the consumer requested a refund and posted a warning only after receiving the finished product, without any objections during the shooting process, is the main reason why the merchant finds it unacceptable and believes that the consumer did it "intentionally."

Xiao Tian (pseudonym), a photographer from Hubei, told reporters that he had provided photography services for two clients. The clients raised no objections throughout the shoot, even telling the shop owner that the group photos looked great. However, after receiving a cloud drive link containing all the original photos, the situation suddenly changed. They suddenly expressed dissatisfaction with the individual photos, demanded a partial refund, and posted warnings on multiple platforms, including Xiaohongshu.

Xiao Tian provided the reporter with a screenshot of the "warning post." The post described his service as having "poor technical skills, the photos are unusable," but it didn't include any receipts or actual photos as evidence. "I can't accept this," Xiao Tian said. "If you really thought the photos were unusable, why didn't you bring it up at the shooting location? And why couldn't you provide any evidence?"

Furthermore, Xiaotian found the other party's attitude towards film selection unacceptable. "Initially, they refused to select films on-site and demanded that the original films be sent via cloud storage. After they requested a refund, we immediately canceled the cloud storage sharing, and their attitude softened. They offered a smaller refund amount and insisted on receiving the original films." In Xiaotian's view, these actions seemed more like a planned "pressure strategy" than a genuine consumer dispute.

However, what the merchants call "no objections throughout the entire process" may be interpreted quite differently by consumers.

Zhou Wei (pseudonym) once experienced a travel photoshoot in Fenghuang Ancient Town. In her opinion, the fact that consumers did not raise any objections during the photoshoot was mainly due to factors such as time costs, the atmosphere on site, and communication efficiency, and did not necessarily mean that they were truly satisfied with the photoshoot results.

"I wasn't satisfied with the initial makeup and asked the makeup artist to change it, but it still wasn't satisfactory. I was too embarrassed to waste any more time. It rained during the shoot, and the photographer wasn't very skilled at guiding me. It was difficult for me to stay focused amidst the crowd. In the end, to save time, I only looked at the photos briefly and just hoped to finish quickly."

This photoshoot took up most of Zhou Wei's time in Fenghuang Ancient Town, but she was not satisfied with the final photos. She believes that consumers are often passive during travel photoshoots, and sometimes they spend more time and energy than expected. Although she didn't ultimately post a warning, she understands those consumers who choose to post to "avoid" such shoots.

Regarding the consumer disputes involved in the "avoidance posts," Yu Tao, the supervisor of the Lijiang Gucheng District Travel Photography Industry Association, told reporters that in recent years, the association has strived to protect consumer rights through measures such as "three 24-hour service commitments," handling complaints through live streaming, and paying quality deposits.

"Currently, the association requires its member units to provide unconditional refunds within 24 hours of receiving a deposit; to provide unconditional refunds within 24 hours of receiving additional renovation requests outside the contract; and to properly resolve any reasonable, legal, and compliant requests from consumers within 24 hours," he said.

Lawyer: "Draw a clear line between reasonable evaluation and malicious defamation"

For photographers, once the shooting service is completed, the time and manpower invested are difficult to recoup; for consumers, spending money and time but not getting a satisfactory product is equally unacceptable. Some businesses and consumers have even taken legal action over these warning posts.

Gao Guangtong, a lawyer at Beijing Hengdu Law Firm, told reporters that according to Article 17 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which stipulates that "business operators shall listen to consumers' opinions on the goods or services they provide and accept consumers' supervision," consumers have the right to evaluate merchants' products or services on online platforms. However, this right to evaluate is not without boundaries; publishing false information about avoiding scams may constitute an infringement of the merchant's right to reputation.

She stated that, based on Article 1024 of the Civil Code and judicial practice, the elements constituting defamation include four categories: 1. The perpetrator has committed illegal acts that infringe upon the right to reputation, such as insult or defamation, where defamation refers to fabricating or disseminating false facts; 2. There is damage resulting in a decrease in social evaluation; 3. There is a causal relationship between the illegal act and the damage; 4. The perpetrator has subjective fault (intent or negligence).

Gao Guangtong emphasized that the key to determining the authenticity of a "warning post" lies in clearly distinguishing between reasonable evaluation and malicious defamation. If a consumer publishes negative reviews that are inconsistent with objective facts, and meets the above requirements, they are suspected of infringing on the merchant's right to reputation, and the merchant can sue for defamation in court. If a consumer intentionally publishes a false "warning post" to demand a refund from the merchant, they may also be suspected of committing the crime of extortion under Article 274 of the Criminal Law.

The reporter noted that although there have been cases where merchants have won lawsuits and consumers have deleted warning posts and apologized, in some cases, negative reviews from consumers have also been deemed reasonable by the courts.

In the case of a photography shop in Anqiu City suing Wang Mouhui for defamation ((2024) Lu 0784 Min Chu No. 1435), the Anqiu City People's Court of Shandong Province ruled that although the wording of the "warning post" published by the consumer after being dissatisfied with the service was subjective, it was based on the real consumer experience and did not reach the level of insult, and therefore did not constitute defamation.

The court's reasoning stated that the defendant's evaluations of the plaintiff in the warning posts were all directed at the services provided by the plaintiff. They were the subjective feelings and personal evaluations of the consumer regarding this consumption. Although the criticisms contained a certain degree of subjectivity and some inappropriate wording, they did not reach the level of insult. As a service provider, the plaintiff should have given necessary tolerance and could not demand that the consumer's evaluations be absolutely accurate, objective, and completely free of subjective emotions.

Wedding photography and destination photography, as industries with long service cycles, highly subjective aesthetics, and difficult-to-standardize results, seem inherently more prone to controversy. In this context, it is particularly important for industry associations to effectively formulate regulations, encourage businesses to improve service quality, and genuinely protect consumer rights. For social media platforms, only by truly fulfilling their primary responsibility for information review and management can "avoidance posts" return to their essential function: becoming a tool for consumers to share genuine experiences, help others avoid risks, and promote market transparency. (End)