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 worth 21,988 yuan at a DJI authorized experience store called "Yongle Photography." According to Mr. Liu's recollection, when he unboxed the device at the store and activated it, he first noticed scratches on the drone's gimbal. "The dealer said it was fine, that it came from official channels, so I didn't pay much attention," Mr. Liu said.

 
 

But after returning home, a second issue emerged. Mr. Liu connected the drone to the remote control for debugging and opened the flight log, only to find three flight control data entries. From the screenshots provided by Mr. Liu, two flight control data entries were recorded at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2021, and another at 4:14 AM on the same day.
 
"Drones leave such records after use, called flight logs. This record indicates that the drone was powered on and operated in September 2021, which is certain," said Mr. Liu, who has purchased multiple DJI products.
 
Mr. Liu expressed that he felt deceived, suspecting that the store had sold him a test unit or a refurbished unit. DJI customer service responded that the flight control data was generated during test flights and does not affect the product's use, and they hoped to resolve the issue by offering complimentary accessories. However, Mr. Liu did not accept this, stating, "I hope the company can provide substantive evidence to prove that this is test data, thereby confirming that this drone is new."

 
 

 
[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 appearing on a new DJI drone is unavoidable data residue from pre-shipment testing procedures, or whether it involves passing off returned refurbished units as new to defraud consumers. The packaging of the drone purchased by Mr. Liu indicated a production date of 2022, but the data stored in the memory was from 2021. This constitutes a false labeling of the production date, leading consumers to mistakenly believe it is the latest product. If the operator was aware of this issue but failed to explain it to the consumer, it amounts to 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 drone was a secondary sale after being returned to the factory, DJI's actions would constitute fraud under 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.