Consumers complaining about the time-honored brand “unpalatable and expensive” is considered an infringement of the reputation of the business?
Lawyer: If you maliciously slander the business, you can defend your rights, but the consumers did not make false statements in this incident
Recently, a Weibo blogger posted a video of a field visit to the Goubuli restaurant in Wangfujing, Beijing, which caused a heated discussion among netizens.
In the video, Weibo blogger "Gu Yue" commented on the quality, service, and price of the buns in the store, mainly negative.
Soon after the video was released, the Weibo account @王府井狗不理店 issued a statement stating that all slurs in the video were false information, and the police had been reported to ask the blogger to stop the infringement and publicly apologize.
In this regard, the blogger said that the video content is his own real experience.
This incident triggered a lively discussion among netizens. Most netizens said angrily: "The store is unpalatable and expensive.
Blogger speaks
"You can post good experiences, but can't you post bad ones?"
The video was posted by Weibo blogger "Gu Yue".
"Guyue" introduced in the video that he found the lowest rated restaurant in Wangfujing/Dongdan area in Beijing on a review website, namely Wangfujing Goubuli Restaurant, and decided to go to this restaurant to experience it.
After arriving at the Goubuli restaurant, "Guyue" spent 60 yuan and 38 yuan to buy a drawer of sauced pork buns and a drawer of pork buns, each with 8 servings.
"Guyue" said after tasting the steamed buns that the sauced pork buns are a bit greasy, and the fillings are almost all fatty meat, and there is no real material. The evaluation of the pork buns is that the skin is thick and there is less filling, and the dough is sticky. The filling is indeed a little bit less, basically like eating half a steamed bun."
After eating the steamed buns, "Gu Yue" said that he felt a little nauseous and also felt that the oil used in the steamed buns was particularly greasy.
After the video was released, it received more than 12 million views and nearly 80,000 likes.
Some netizens replied that the blogger’s evaluation was objective enough, “I took my daughter and mother-in-law to eat in 2018. The price is expensive, the service attitude is not good, and the taste is average”.
Later, Beijing local news blogger "Beijing things that Beijingers don't know" reposted the video on Weibo.
After the video sparked heated discussion on the Internet, Wangfujing Goubuli Restaurant responded on Weibo, asking "Beijing things that Beijingers don't know" and "Gu Yue" publicly apologize in mainstream domestic media.
The statement issued by the Weibo account @王府井狗不理店 shows that the restaurant believes that the video has a very bad social impact on the restaurant, and stated that all slanderous comments in the video are false information.
The statement also mentioned that in response to this incident, Goubuli Restaurant has reported to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau Network Security Detachment.
In this regard, "Gu Yue" said in an interview with the media that he did not intend to target the store by shooting this video.
He said that he just wanted to experience whether a restaurant with a low score on the Dianping software was true, so he searched for this restaurant near his residence.
"Guyue" also said that there is nothing wrong with his shooting: "We take pictures of food and drink. If there is a good experience, I will post it. If there is a bad experience, I can’t post it? I just post my real experience."
Lawyer's Statement
Merchants have moderate tolerance obligations
Video content has not exceeded the tolerance limit
On September 12, "Gu Yue" spoke again: There is no malicious in posting the negative video, and it is not aimed at "Goubuli". The police have not contacted him.
At present, the Weibo account of Wangfujing Goubuli Restaurant has been cancelled, and the statement posted online has also been deleted.
Many media called the restaurant involved for an interview, but did not get a response from the restaurant.
So, can consumers publicly publish negative reviews of the store?
Does the blogger’s comments constitute infringement?
Attorney Wu Zhengping of Hubei Shouyi Law Firm believes that if the purpose of consumers' public speech is for the public interest, in this case, in terms of the relationship between consumers and businesses, consumers have the right to criticize and supervise, and businesses have moderate Duty of tolerance.
At the same time, in this case, the perpetrators of public speech have greater freedom.
Wu Zhengping said that if consumers' public statements are seriously inaccurate or use insulting language, the perpetrators still have to bear tort liability.
He believes that the blogger's comments in the video are objective and fair on the whole, and the video content has not exceeded the limit of people's tolerance.
As for whether Goubuli restaurant should report to the police to deal with the matter, Wu Zhengping suggested that businesses can negotiate with the producer and publisher of the video to deal with the dispute.
Han Xiao, a lawyer at Beijing Kangda Law Firm, believes that the determination of infringement of legal person’s right of reputation should be analyzed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Law. Generally, it should be conducted by means of fabricating facts such as insults and slander, and whether it is subjective. Intentional and many other factors determine whether infringement or not.
Han Xiao said that according to the information currently disclosed, although the consumer is a professional photographer, the disclosed information has not made fabricated or false statements, and it should not be deemed as an infringement of the business’s reputation or goodwill.
In response to some malicious negative reviews by users or competitors, Han Xiao pointed out that if businesses believe that the other party fabricated facts, insulted and slandered, they can use various methods to defend their rights.
First of all, you can file complaints and appeals to the video website, and request the website to remove the video from the shelves; at the same time, if you think it is really necessary, you can protect your legitimate rights and interests by suing the court.
Provoke thinking
Time-honored brands face many business problems
If you don’t have a veteran status, you can accumulate reputation
In recent years, time-honored restaurants have faced many operating problems.
Lu Benfu, a professor at the School of Economics and Management of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that time-honored brands themselves contain huge brand value. On the other hand, time-honored brands do not mean that they can be conserved and immutable. They must also adapt to the needs of market development.
In response to this matter, the People’s Daily Weibo published a short comment on #你好，明天# on the 13th, stating that the right and wrong are right and wrong, and the little bun is "wrapped" by reason, reason and legal principle.
Consumers’ tastes have become “savvy”, how do businesses press consumer psychology?
With the changing times, how can time-honored brands keep up with market demand?
The time-honored brand accumulates feelings, and it is better to accumulate reputation without being a veteran.
Comprehensive CCTV, People's Daily client, People's Daily Weibo, "Chutian Metropolis Daily", etc.