A 10,000-yuan drone is actually second-hand? DJI's response is disheartening

[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
On February 26, Mr. Liu purchased a DJI Mavic 3 drone valued at 21,988 yuan at a DJI authorized experience store named “Yongle Photography.” According to Mr. Liu’s recollection, when the box was opened at the store, he activated the device and first noticed marks of impact on the aircraft’s camera gimbal. “The dealer said there was no problem and that all goods were sourced through official channels, so I did not pay much attention to it,” said Mr. Liu.

 
 

But after returning home, a second issue emerged. When Mr. Liu connected the aircraft to the remote controller for debugging and opened the flight log, he discovered that there were actually 3 sets of flight control data. From the screenshots provided by Mr. Liu, it can be seen that two sets of flight control data were recorded at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2021, and the other at 4:14 AM on the same day.
 
"After use, drones all have this kind of record, called a flight log. The presence of this record indicates that this drone was powered on and operated in September 2021—this much can be certain," said Mr. Liu, who has purchased multiple DJI products.
 
Mr. Liu said he felt he had been scammed and suspected the store had sold him a test unit or a refurbished device. DJI customer service responded that the flight control data was generated during test flights, did not affect the use of the product, and expressed the hope of resolving the issue by giving away peripheral gifts. However, Mr. Liu did not accept this, “I hope the official can provide substantive evidence to prove that this is test data, thereby demonstrating that this drone is a new unit.”

 
 

 
[1] "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests"
Article 4
Operators and consumers should conduct transactions based on the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness.
 
Article 8
Consumers have the right to know the true situation of the goods they purchase, use, or the services they receive. Consumers are entitled to request from operators, based on the different circumstances of the goods or services, information such as the price, origin, producer, purpose, performance, specifications, grade, main ingredients, production date, expiration date, inspection certificate, instruction manual, after-sales service, or the content, specifications, and cost of the service.
 
Article 55
If an operator engages in fraudulent behavior in providing goods or services, they shall increase compensation for the consumer's losses according to the consumer's request, with the increased compensation amount being three times the price of the purchased goods or the cost of the received service; if the increased compensation amount is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan. If other laws provide otherwise, those provisions shall apply. If an operator knowingly provides goods or services with defects, causing death or serious health damage to consumers or other victims, the victim has the right to demand compensation for losses from the operator in accordance with Articles 49 and 51 of this law, and also has the right to demand punitive damages of up to twice the amount of the losses incurred.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
The key issue is whether the flight data in DJI's new device is unavoidable data residue from the factory testing process, or whether returned and refurbished devices are being sold as new in a fraudulent manner. The packaging of the drone purchased by Mr. Liu shows a date of 2022, while the data in the memory is from 2021. This constitutes a false labeling of the production date, leading consumers to mistakenly believe it is the latest manufactured product. The operator, being aware of this issue, failed to clarify it to the consumer, which constitutes a fraudulent practice of “false product description.” Regardless, DJI should bear the burden of proving that its products meet quality standards. If Mr. Liu proves that the device was resold after being returned to the factory, DJI's conduct would fall under the fraudulent acts stipulated in Article 55 of the aforementioned law.
 
In addition, when selling drones, DJI can include the detail that test flight data may exist in the product manual, informing consumers in this explicit manner, and take care to proactively remind consumers during sales, thereby minimizing unnecessary misunderstandings. From this perspective, DJI failed to fulfill its duty to explain, and Mr. Liu can demand a return based on this.