A complete account of a three-year, coordinated cover-up that began with a single catalog entry error.

A thorough investigation of consumer rights violations involving Lazada Thailand, Xiaomi TH-store, and their affiliates.

Top Secret

Main Characters: Sekine Koichi

Retailer: Xiaomi TH

-store (Dragon Xiang Trading Co., Ltd.)

Platform: Lazada Thailand: QC Team, AI Cleo (Support), Lawyer

Catalogue Source (Alleged): Xiaomi Official Store

The Origin: A Discrepancy Between Promised Features and Delivered Product

On November 11, 2021, a consumer ordered a Redmi 10 smartphone from the Xiaomi TH-store on Lazada, which was advertised as having a convenient NFC function. However, the product that arrived did not have that function. This marked the beginning of a battle that would last more than three years.

Order Date: November 11, 2021

Order Number: 466774368355172

Price: $4,765.00

The cause was simple: a catalog error. This problem could have been resolved with a prompt return and refund.

The First Inconsistency: AI-Defined Return Authorization, Unreasonable Rejection by the QC Team

The consumer requested a return claim for a "wrong item" due to the lack of NFC. Lazada's AI assistant, "Cleo," deemed this a legitimate reason and approved the return. However, after the item arrived at Lazada's warehouse, the QC team inexplicably rejected it for "not complying with policy" and returned it to the consumer.

The QC team's rationale for the decision: "Received item is as described/advertised by seller. Answer: YES."

The QC team did not investigate the catalog error and only confirmed that the item was "genuine," misunderstanding the true nature of the claim.

The beginning of an attempt to avoid responsibility: an "apology" containing vague language and threats

On December 17, 2021, more than a month after the problem occurred, Xiaomi TH-store issued its first apology via chat. However, the content of the apology was limited to the vague expression "misinformation," and did not address the core issue of the catalogue error. Furthermore, it included inappropriate language that appeared to threaten customers. 12/17

Sender recalled the message

Hello

I'm a store operator, sorry for any inconvenience caused. As the phone you received reported that the Redmi 10 uses NFC, I'm very sorry for any misinformation. I take responsibility for making a refund. If later, it will be you who will lose the benefits.

How would you like us to help? Please let us know.

We shouldn't negotiate back and forth like this. It will waste both parties' time.

I sincerely apologize for this incident.

Ambrogism of responsibility: By using the term "misinformation" instead of "incorrect statement," it becomes unclear who is responsible.

Threatening language: The statement "You will lose the benefits" is an attempt to pressure the customer.

Disregard for negotiation: Dismissing legitimate claims as a "waste of time" and showing no sincerity in resolving the problem.

Intensifying cover-up: Unilaterally sending vouchers and declaring the issue "resolved" 

On February 1, 2022, Lazada unilaterally sent a voucher (equivalent to a refund) to the consumer's account without their permission. Using this as evidence, they declared the "claim resolved." This was the beginning of a cover-up attempt to avoid disclosing the root cause, a catalogue entry error, and to contain the problem with money.

Lazada Date: 2022/02/01 17:59 (Facebook) Content: "We are pleased to inform you that the refund procedure was completed on January 27, 2022. You can check your Lazada wallet balance with your Lazada account."

Resolved

Consumer's Claim

"I'm not requesting anything. The deposit procedure is complete. This transfer is just to create an alibi!"

"Lazada will try to resolve my complaint for free. 70 days of inconvenience. Mental distress. Physical pain. I demand compensation."

"This voucher is Lazada's declaration that the issue has been resolved, and this response invalidates their own validation."

Legal Threats: False complaint and threat to sue if the product is not returned.

Immediately after the voucher was sent, on February 18, 2022, Lazada's lawyer filed a complaint with Thonglor Police Station, threatening "legal action if the consumer does not cooperate" after the consumer refused to return the product. The complaint also included a false statement that the consumer had requested "35,000 baht in compensation," which the consumer did not request.

Notice from lawyer (excerpt): 

Regarding the refund and return issues you have raised with Lazada, we have done our best to find a solution for you. Eventually, we have already refunded your wallet and requested that the item be returned in accordance with our policy.

However, we have not yet received any cooperation on this matter. Therefore, we have no choice but to compile the attached report to the police.

If you still do not cooperate with us and continue to be ashamed of Lazada, we reserve the right to take further legal action against you.

Complaint filed with Thonglor Police Station (excerpt):

"Mr. Sekine wants a full refund of the 4,788 bath product price and the full parts price, as well as compensation of 35,000 baht..."

2022/02/18 14:37

Lazada's lawyer files complaint with Thonglor Police Station

Consumer's comment: "I never asked for 35,000 baht. I need evidence."

Conclusion: This was malicious legal pressure to divert attention from the real issue of the catalog listing error, force the recall of the product, and close the matter.

Destruction of Evidence: 10 Days of Chat History Intentionally Deleted

On March 18, 2022, the consumer discovered that the chat logs with Xiaomi TH-store covering the crucial period (November 15-24, 2021) during which the initial return negotiations took place had been deleted without permission. This strongly suggests that this was an intentional attempt to destroy evidence in order to conceal inconvenient interactions for the company.

Importance of the Deleted Period

- The initial return request and the store's reasons for its refusal.

- The exchange of information with Lazada Help Cleo regarding return authorization.

- These were the most important pieces of evidence proving the inconsistency between Lazada and the store's initial response.

"The store did not delete the chat."chatted with.

Two Years of Excuses: The Changing "Official Statement"

It took two years for Xiaomi TH-store and Lazada to acknowledge the core of the problem: a "catalog error." During that time, they used vague terminology, repeatedly changed their explanations, and intentionally delayed investigating the cause.

Term: Misinformation　

December 17, 2021

Explanation: "The phone you received was reported to use NFC. We apologize for the misinformation."

Term: Misidentification Information　

June 27, 2023

Explanation: "In the case of the nature of the product in dispute, the cause was misidentification."

Term: Formal written confirmation of catalog listing error　

November 20, 2023

Explanation: "As stated, this product does not have an actual NFC system. The cause was misidentification."

This evolution documents how a simple mistake that should have been immediately acknowledged has been concealed for so long, and how the company has attempted to avoid responsibility.

Conclusive Evidence: An Official Confession Two Years Later

After nearly three years of persistent pursuit, on November 20, 2023, Xiaomi TH-store finally officially admitted in writing in a report to the consumer center that the product did not have NFC. This is irrefutable evidence that overturns all previous excuses.

Two years (approximately 735 days)

Claims from November 15, 2021 (to consumers)

"This product does not support NFC."

"Returns are not accepted. This device is fine."

The company dismissed the consumer's claims and acted as if there was no problem.

Official document dated November 20, 2023 (OCPB)

"I'll admit it here. As stated, this product does not have an actual NFC system."

The company officially acknowledged to a public institution that the product did not have NFC.

Organizational flaws: Lazada's QC team's misjudgment prevented the problem from being resolved.

One of the biggest reasons this issue lasted so long was a fatal misjudgment by Lazada's quality control (QC) team. They failed to understand the true nature of the complaint and rejected legitimate return requests based solely on perfunctory checks. This shows that Lazada's internal processes were dysfunctional.

Quote: Chat log with Lazada Support Care (April 4, 2023)

"As we have checked, you returned this item for the reason of receiving the wrong item. The item is clearly the same, but as you inform us that you returned it because of NFC, the return reason should be that the item does not match the advertisement, so the QC team will find out and explain in detail why the QC team rejected your return item."

The QC team only looked at whether the product received was different from the order name, not whether it was a mismatch with the catalog. This is a shifting of blame, as the consumer did not select the correct reason for return.

Without this initial misjudgment, the issue would have been resolved by November 2021.

Internal Contradiction: Conflicting Claims from Lazada's Lawyers and Support Department

Lazada's organizational confusion is most evident in the completely contradictory claims made by its lawyers and support team. One side claims the issue is "resolved," while the other claims "no responsibility." This contradiction illustrates how irresponsible and ad hoc the company has been in its dealings with customers.

Lazada Lawyer (น.ส.อัจฉราทรายงาม)

"We have already refunded the wallet. The claim is now resolved."

Basis: The unilateral sending of the voucher on February 1, 2022, and the filing of a police report on February 18.

Purpose: To legally resolve the issue and recall the product.

One company, two completely different views. Which should consumers believe?

This contradiction itself proves that Lazada's claim that the matter is "resolved" is invalid.

Lazada Support Care (Contact: Petro_TCT)

"The voucher can only be provided by the seller (Xiaomi). Lazada cannot be held responsible in this matter."

Basis: Chat log from March 29, 2023.

Purpose: To avoid responsibility as a platform and shift the blame to Xiaomi.

Final retaliation: Unauthorized account closure and complete erasure of evidence

After nearly three years of pursuit, Lazada completely abandoned attempts to resolve the issue through dialogue. On July 5, 2024, the consumer's account was unilaterally closed without prior notice, and the voucher, which had once been considered "proof of resolution," was confiscated. Furthermore, all chat history with the store was deleted, treating the issue as if it had never existed.

Confiscation of voucher: Defense

Unauthorized closure of  account:

July 5, 2024

The basis on which the lawyer declared the matter "resolved" was lost. All chat history deleted: Even the last piece of evidence was erased.

"Account closed without permission! Vouchers confiscated! All chat with the store deleted! Violation of consumer protection law! Fraud!"

This was retaliation against the consumer who blew the whistle on the problem, and the final stage of a coordinated cover-up.

The Ending Three Years and Four Months Later: "Misleading Advertising" Found

1,215 days after the initial order, on March 11, 2025, Lazada Customer Care finally acknowledged that the discrepancy between the product description and the actual product may constitute "misleading advertising," and notified the customer that a refund would be processed and that sales of the product would be suspended. This was the moment when Lazada officially acknowledged that the consumer's claims, which had been made for over three years, were correct.

Date: March 11, 2025

Dear Sekine Koichi,

Warm greetings from Lazada!

Thank you for contacting us with case number 2500000165226821

Lazada would like to inform you that we have reviewed your complaint regarding a store selling mobile phones with product descriptions that do not match the actual items sold.

This discrepancy may constitute misleading advertising and could cause confusion among consumers.

We would like to inform you that we have already processed your refund and have suspended the sale of the product in question from the respective store.

Additionally, we acknowledge the issue and will take your complaint into consideration to improve the standards of products available on our platform.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and appreciate your feedback, which helps us enhance our services.

March 11, 2025: Lazada Admits to "Misleading Advertising"　　　　　　　　　　　　　Days Elapsed: 1,215

This response was limited to "notifying the facts," and no disciplinary action was taken against Xiaomi TH-Store or any holding of company personnel responsible was reported. Therefore, no substantial corrective measures were taken; merely a notice that "such a problem existed."

Note: "Misleading advertising" is a serious issue that constitutes a suspected violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and future action is required.

This case is not simply a product defect or a customer service error. The series of actions by Lazada, Xiaomi TH-Store, and their affiliates constitute multiple serious violations.

Violation of the Consumer Protection Act 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Suspected fraud

The product was labeled "NFC supported" despite not having NFC, misleading consumers. Even after realizing the error, the company failed to notify, correct, or stop sales, and continued selling the product with the misleading information.

The company is suspected of knowingly selling the product without NFC, concealing this fact and defrauding customers. It continues to refuse returns with false explanations.

Subject: Xiaomi TH-store, Lazada　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Subject: Xiaomi TH-store

Suspected of destroying evidence　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Defamation and false statements

Chat history (10 days' worth) containing records of negotiations that were unfavorable to the company was intentionally deleted without permission.

POLICE

Subject: Lazada / Xiaomi TH-store　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Subject: Lazada lawyer

A complaint was filed with the police containing false statements, such as a request for 35,000 baht, which the customer did not request, thereby defaming the customer.

Organizational Cover-Up　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　The entire organization attempted to conceal the fact of the catalog error by unilaterally sending vouchers to force a resolution, shifting the blame between departments and stakeholders, and continuing to give contradictory explanations.

Actors: Lazada, Xiaomi TH-store, lawyer

Why did a 4,765 baht issue take more than three years?

The essence of this case is not the price of a single smartphone.

It was a problem that even an elementary school student could solve. Simply admitting the catalog error, apologizing, and replacing or refunding the product would have been enough to resolve the issue in a day.

Instead of acknowledging its mistake, the company chose to cover it up.

Denial, deception, intimidation.

More than three years of mental and physical pain. Lost time. And a loss of trust in the company. This shows how a company that fails to correct a minor error can rob consumers of their dignity and trust and claim it as its own achievement.

What's at stake isn't the value of a single phone. It's the integrity of a company.