近日，有網友投訴稱，在茶飲品牌“爺爺不泡茶”點單一杯飲品但到手的只有半杯。

據該網友發布的視頻，消費者將未開封的飲品上下翻轉，飲品只有半杯，該杯子上半身為不透明的包裝，消費者稱她點的是去冰的飲品，“上半身設計成不透明的，我要不是拎著感覺這么輕，都不會倒過來看看”。

Recent social media complaints have sparked renewed debates about transparency in China's beverage industry. A viral video showed a customer receiving a half-filled cup from a bubble tea chain despite paying 17 yuan, the price for a full cup. The opaque upper section of the cup concealed the actual volume, with the consumer noting they only noticed the shortage due to the cup's unusually light weight.

該款飲品“初戀玫瑰青提”在“爺爺不泡茶”小程序售價17元。5月15日，“爺爺不泡茶”官方客服在該帖子留言稱，對此非常抱歉并且高度重視，需要門店進一步檢查，并稱企業的飲品制作均有標準流程。

據南都報道，同日，“爺爺不泡茶”方面向記者表示，已經聯系顧客進行賠禮道歉，并且給予相應退款。

The brand's customer service team issued a public apology on Thursday, vowing to investigate store operations while asserting adherence to "standardized production protocols". The company later confirmed to media that it had refunded and personally apologized to the affected customer.

一杯飲料半杯冰？

據媒體此前報道，有網友發視頻稱：在瑞幸咖啡買的兩杯拿鐵，三分之二全是冰塊，喝兩三口就沒了。

當事人張先生稱：當時用券點了兩杯咖啡，點的是正常冰，結果兩杯拿到手，打開一看基本都是半杯以上的冰，咖啡可能只有一半不到。感覺花得很不值，里面就沒有去冰的選項，感覺很坑人。

The incident parallels a controversy involving Luckin Coffee. A Customer surnamed Zhang documented receiving lattes that were filled over halfway with ice, leaving minimal room for coffee. He criticized the absence of a "no ice" option as deceptive, stating: "This feels like a scam – we're paying for drinks, not ice."

曾有商家因“照騙”被判欺詐

去年，重慶市江津區人民法院審結了一起因外賣實物與宣傳照片不符而引發的餐飲服務合同糾紛案。

小潘是重慶市江津區一所高校的在讀學生。2024年4月，小潘在一家燒烤店下單，包含一份15元的魚香肉絲。收到餐食后，小潘認為魚香肉絲卻沒有多少，與下單時商家展示的圖片嚴重不符。

小潘認為燒烤店構成欺詐，遂起訴。

法院經審理認為，小潘收到的魚香肉絲與商家在平臺上展示的照片存在顯著差異，且其中混雜占比較大的其他菜品，不符合一般消費者對該菜品的認知，故認定該燒烤店存在欺詐行為。據此，法院判決該燒烤店應向小潘支付三倍賠償，因賠償金額不足500元，故認定為500元。

In April 2024, Jiangjin District People's Court in Chongqing delivered a precedent-setting verdict. A college student, surnamed Pan, sued a barbecue restaurant after receiving a 15-yuan "fish-flavored pork" dish that starkly differed from images of the dish on advertisements. What Pan received contained scant meat amid filler vegetables. The court ruled the "substantial discrepancy" constituted fraud, ordering triple compensation under consumer protection laws, with the minimum payout set at 500 yuan.

律師指出，《中華人民共和國消費者權益保護法》第九條規定，消費者享有自主選擇商品或者服務的權利。

餐飲經營者應根據消費者的實際需要，為消費者提供“多冰”“正常冰”“少冰”“去冰”或通過備注方式調整加冰數量等個性化選項，供消費者自主選擇，也可以將飲品和冰分開，由消費者自主決定是否加冰及加多少冰。

《中華人民共和國消費者權益保護法》第十條規定，“消費者享有公平交易的權利”。

消費者購買飲料時，默認購買的是飲料而不是冰。餐飲經營者可以在點餐臺、廣告單及食物圖片等顯眼處明示顧客有要求飲品不加冰的權利。若消費者對加冰容量提出質疑時，餐飲經營者應予以及時、正面的答復。

此外，根據《廣告法》，廣告必須真實、合法，不得含有虛假或引人誤解的內容，欺騙、誤導消費者。如果奶茶商家通過精美海報展示大量果肉、誘人奶油頂等，但實際產品與之相差甚遠，屬于典型的虛假宣傳。一旦查實，商家將面臨嚴厲處罰。

Legal authorities emphasize that consumers hold statutory rights to customize ice levels, requiring businesses to provide options like "regular ice", "less ice" or "no ice", or serve ice separately. Additionally, beverage pricing must reflect liquid content unless explicitly stated otherwise. Under China's Advertising Law, businesses risk penalties if products significantly deviate from promotional visuals exaggerating ingredients like fruit portions or cream toppings.

來源：中國青年報 九派新聞

China Daily精讀計劃

每天20分鐘，英語全面提升！