Annual Report on Internet Civil and Commercial Trials and Ten Typical Cases Released
"0 yuan purchase" and "free delivery" are the most prone to problems
With the continuous innovation of Internet service models, the risk of network infringement is increasing, and network development and security are facing new challenges.
Some operators use gimmicks such as "0 yuan purchase" and "free delivery" to gain attention, but the actual product delivery lacks transparency, and even sells fake and inferior products through low-cost strategies, defrauding consumers' trust and concealing the money with them, and consumers are constantly calling for rights protection. enhanced.
Today, Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court, as the court of second instance for Beijing Internet civil and commercial cases, released the annual report on Internet civil and commercial trials and ten typical cases.
case
The second instance of the "0 yuan purchase" online sales dispute case was revised
Online trading platform returns consumer shopping money
Guo purchased a smart treadmill in an online store opened by a technology company in Hangzhou, and the product details page showed that the store was holding a "0 yuan purchase" activity.
After Guo reached the "0 yuan purchase" standard according to the rules, the online store refused to refund the money, and then lost contact and closed the store due to poor management.
During the participation in the activity and after reaching the standard, Mr. Guo called an e-commerce company on the e-commerce platform many times to ask customer service to intervene. The customer service responded in the early stage, "The company will definitely be responsible for the follow-up problems of the merchant" and "I will give you a refund through the company's advance payment method." ”, but later replied that it refused to advance the refund.
Guo then sued for a refund from the e-commerce platform.
The judgment of the first instance held that the e-commerce company, as an online trading platform, had provided Guo with the real name, address and contact information of the store involved in the case during the litigation, fulfilling its statutory disclosure obligations; The commitment to pay in advance did not meet the "Criteria for Judgment of Advance Compensation", so the first-instance judgment rejected all of Guo's claims.
After Guo appealed, the court of second instance held that, considering that the founder or manager of the online trading platform has the ability to establish and improve the platform management mechanism, and has far more control over the operators who use the platform than consumers, according to Guo and the platform customer service The chat records show that the promises made by the e-commerce company should be identified as an agreement between the online platform provider and Guo. From the perspective of encouraging the online platform provider to take more favorable protections for consumers, the platform should fulfill its own benefits. consumer commitment.
Therefore, the second instance changed the judgment that the e-commerce platform should return Guo's shopping money.
Phenomenon
The number of Internet civil and commercial appeals continues to rise
The false propaganda of online transactions such as "0 yuan purchase" is prominent
Cheng Hu, vice president of Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court, said that in the past two years, Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court has accepted a total of 1,566 Internet civil and commercial appeal cases, of which 602 were accepted in 2020, an increase of 86.96% year-on-year; 964 cases were accepted in 2021, a year-on-year increase of 60.13 %.
Among the cases concluded in the second instance, 690 cases were concluded by judgment in the second instance, accounting for 47.33%; 625 cases were closed by mediation or the parties voluntarily withdrawn their appeals or prosecuted cases after mediation by the court, accounting for 42.87%; 67 cases were remanded for retrial or verdicts changed in the second instance. , accounting for 4.6%.
According to reports, Internet infringement disputes and Internet service disputes are rising rapidly.
There were 509 online sales contract disputes, accounting for 35.5%, and 859 online tort liability disputes, accounting for 59.9%.
With the vigorous development of online transactions, competition has become increasingly fierce.
On the one hand, promotional activities such as "half-price promotion", "limited-time discount", "buy one get more free" and "0 yuan purchase" can bring benefits to consumers; on the other hand, some operators use the name of "discount" and "free delivery". There is a lack of transparency in the actual product launch, and the original price information of the product is untrue, and even sells fake and shoddy products through a low-price strategy, defrauding consumers and concealing the money with them.
In the field of special food, false propaganda and exaggerated propaganda are still common. Some health food propaganda exaggerates the effect of the product, and improperly adds disease prevention and treatment content; some ordinary food improperly promotes the edible effect of infants and young children, and pretends to be special formula food.
In addition, the issue of network service providers and network platforms improperly exploiting their dominant position in contracting to damage the legitimate rights and interests of consumers should also be taken seriously.
Some service providers add to the user agreement clauses such as "the right to unilaterally change the contract" or "the right of final interpretation", etc., in the subsequent update process of the agreement version without consulting with the user. The contract terms of interest, violate the content of previous commitments, improperly increase the cost of use of consumers or affect consumers’ experience and feelings, and damage the legitimate interests of consumers; some online platforms use standard clauses to lead the court with jurisdiction to disputes to areas that are inconvenient for consumers. Or stipulate abnormally high and low default liability clauses in the standard clauses, excessively magnifying their own rights and interests.