Recently, the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing disclosed a case involving a dispute over an online sales contract. Consumers who shop in online community group buying mode but fail to receive the goods after payment, the court ruled that the "supply team leader" should bear corresponding responsibilities for breach of contract. It is reported that Wang used a social group buying WeChat mini program to purchase an intelligent wireless floor scrubber from Li, the "supply team leader". Due to Li's failure to ship the goods within 72 hours after Wang placed the order and made payment as agreed, Wang initiated a refund request. Chen, the "sales team leader", processed the refund in the system and displayed a full refund. Subsequently, Wang sued Li, Chen, and a group buying mini program developer, Shanghai Information Technology Co., Ltd., to the court. The court held that Li failed to deliver the goods within 72 hours as agreed, and as the actual payee, did not handle the refund application initiated by Wang, which constituted a breach of contract. Wang claimed that Li should refund the payment, and the court should support it. Therefore, the court ruled that Li should immediately refund all the payment to Wang upon the judgment taking effect. Currently, with the rise of community economy, many online platforms that adopt private domain operation models have been launched and rapidly developed. These community group buying platforms are supplied by suppliers, and the "supply team leader" is responsible for selecting products, initiating group buying, shipping, and after-sales service, while the "help sales team leader" is responsible for distribution; The 'supply team leader' collects payment, while the 'sales team leader' collects commission; The "group leader" spreads and shares through private domain traffic such as WeChat friends, WeChat groups, and Moments, establishing a certain community relationship. The "group members" purchase from the group through this community relationship. In the online community group buying model, the after-sales link is relatively long, and returns and exchanges require the consent of the 'sales team leader'. Ultimately, the 'supply team leader' decides whether to handle after-sales issues, and consumers need to invest a lot of time and energy to solve after-sales problems. At the same time, due to the involvement of multiple parties in the transaction process, consumers often find it difficult to distinguish the parties involved in the sales contract, which poses certain obstacles to safeguarding their rights The presiding judge of the case stated that in this case, the "supply team leader" is the final decision-maker for refunding consumers, and the account of the "supply team leader" is the ultimate flow of payment funds. Therefore, if the "supply team leader" breaches the contract and fails to ship the goods, they should bear corresponding breach of contract liability. The verdict of this case provides a path for consumers who shop through online community group buying models to protect their rights, which is beneficial for consumers to clarify the responsible parties and ways of assuming responsibility in the new online shopping model. (New Society)