Introduction:A consumer in Hefei, Anhui ordered a milk tea through a food delivery platform, only to find a cockroach at the bottom of the cup. After the incident was exposed, she even received anonymous threats. The case highlights the difficulty of identifying counterfeit brands on delivery platforms and raises concerns about food safety. This article details the incident, analyzes the challenges consumers face in seeking justice, and offers practical advice on evidence preservation and legal recourse to help protect your rights.
Recently, a female consumer in Hefei, Anhui purchased a milk tea via a food delivery platform. After finishing the drink, she found a cockroach at the bottom of the cup, which was utterly disgusting. Even more shocking, after she shared the incident on Weibo, she received threatening private messages from an unknown source, including accusations that she had staged the incident herself and even threats to her personal safety. The incident quickly sparked widespread online discussion, with related topics garnering massive attention, trending on Weibo, and attracting over 84.574 million views.
An investigation revealed that the involved shop was not the authentic "COCO都可" the consumer thought it was, but a counterfeit outlet called "與COCO茶飲" (translated as "With COCO Tea"). Such imitation brands are often hard for consumers to distinguish on delivery platforms, with differences only noticeable upon visiting the physical store—such as signage like "CoCo STORM 樂可風暴." This incident not only underscores the lack of oversight by delivery platforms regarding counterfeit brands but also serves as another wake-up call for food safety.
According to the consumer, after discovering the cockroach in her milk tea, she immediately contacted the merchant to report the issue. However, the merchant responded that such an incident had never occurred before and suspected that the cockroach might have crawled into the drink while she was drinking it, as more than an hour had passed from the time of pickup to discovery. The merchant suggested she contact the delivery platform first rather than directly blaming the shop.
During communication with the merchant, the consumer also realized that the "COCO milk tea shop" she had ordered from multiple times was actually a counterfeit brand. The two looked extremely similar on the delivery platform, making it difficult for consumers to identify the fake at first glance. In fact, only in the physical store could one clearly see the sign "CoCo STORM 樂可風暴" hanging at the counterfeit shop, which was noticeably different from the authentic COCO都可.
Faced with this incident, the consumer demanded that the merchant accompany her for a medical check-up and sought compensation for emotional distress. Initially, the merchant only agreed to a refund and to assist with 150 yuan in compensation via the delivery platform. However, the consumer felt this amount was far too low given the psychological impact and demanded 1,000 yuan in compensation, emphasizing that only half an hour had passed from delivery to discovering the cockroach and questioning the merchant’s handling. The merchant, however, accused the consumer of extortion, refused reasonable compensation, and threatened legal action.
As the two parties failed to reach an agreement, the consumer chose to publicize the incident on social media, but soon received multiple threatening private messages. Screenshots showed messages from an unknown person such as: "Why not just say you put it in yourself? Saying it after you finished drinking, you must be desperate for money," and "These 1,000 yuan will be your coffin money." These incidents raise concerns about the environment for consumer rights protection. Although the consumer suspected the merchant was behind the threats, the shop manager later claimed to be unaware of the threats or to have instructed any staff to intimidate, and emphasized that the shop had all necessary licenses, employee health certificates, and legitimate franchise rights.
The incident continued to gain traction online, drawing widespread attention. Perhaps due to public pressure or damage to their reputation, the merchant eventually promised to apologize and compensate the consumer, fire the involved store manager, and pledged a comprehensive overhaul of the outlet. Legal experts pointed out that finding foreign objects, especially cockroaches—which may carry pathogens—in food naturally causes discomfort and concern, so filing complaints and seeking justice is entirely reasonable. Prosecutors also reminded the public that when encountering problematic food, receipts, photos, and the problematic food items themselves should be preserved as evidence immediately.
In the face of similar food safety incidents, professionals advise consumers to take photos immediately as evidence and document the incident in detail, including the delivery time and the exact moment the foreign object was discovered. These details are crucial in the subsequent process of safeguarding one's rights. When receiving complaints, merchants—if able to provide sufficient evidence to prove their innocence—should respond proactively; if they cannot clear themselves, they should take the initiative to negotiate fair compensation with the consumer and offer a sincere apology. That is the correct attitude to resolve disputes.
This milk tea cockroach incident is not just an isolated consumer dispute but reflects the management gaps in counterfeit brand oversight and food safety monitoring on delivery platforms. While enjoying the convenience, consumers should also stay vigilant, learn to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit products, and know how to use laws and evidence to protect their rights when problems arise.
The above content is compiled by CoffeeHunters, a coffee news website.
