The Supreme People's Court clarifies that false orders, reviews, and traffic contracts are invalid

　　China News Service, March 2 (Xinhua) -- The Supreme People's Court held a press conference on the "Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Online Consumer Disputes (1)" on the 2nd. Make an introduction.

The judicial interpretation clarifies that a contract signed by an e-commerce operator and others to conduct false publicity in the form of fictitious transactions, fictitious clicks, fabricated user reviews, etc., shall be invalidated by the people's court in accordance with the law, and market entities shall be guided to regulate their operations.

　　The "Regulations" mainly stipulate the rights and obligations of online consumption contracts, the identification of responsible subjects, the civil liability of live broadcast marketing, and the civil liability of takeaway catering, with a total of 20 provisions.

　　First, adhere to the legality review and standardize the standard terms of online consumption.

In practice, there are cases where e-commerce operators take advantage of their dominant positions to formulate unfair and unreasonable standard terms that infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

Article 1 of the "Regulations" lists the unfair and unreasonable standard clauses that are common in practice, such as "signing for receipt of goods is deemed to recognize the quality of the goods", "operators have the right of unilateral interpretation or final interpretation", etc. It is stipulated that the standard clauses with the above-mentioned contents shall be deemed invalid according to the law.

　　The second is to improve the seven-day no-reason return system and strengthen the protection of consumers' after-sale rights and interests.

When shopping in a brick-and-mortar mall, consumers can have an on-site experience, which is often not possible with online shopping.

To this end, the Consumer Rights Protection Law has set up a seven-day no-reason return system.

The "Regulations" further clarified this, stipulating that consumers need to unpack and inspect the goods for inspection without affecting the integrity of the goods, and e-commerce operators may not claim that the seven-day no-reason return system is not applicable on the grounds that the goods have been opened. At the same time, it is clear that unless otherwise provided by law.

　　The third is to clarify the legal consequences of self-operated misleading by e-commerce platforms, and to consolidate platform responsibilities.

Article 4 of the "Regulations" clarifies that when an e-commerce platform conducts self-operated business, it shall bear the responsibility of a commodity seller or service provider.

Even if the e-commerce platform does not actually carry out self-operated business, but its logos are enough to mislead consumers into believing that it is self-operated by the platform, the e-commerce platform operator shall also bear the responsibility of the seller of goods or service provider.

　　The fourth is to clarify the legal consequences of off-platform payment, and to consolidate the responsibility of merchants.

In practice, there are cases where staff such as merchant customer service guide consumers to make payment through methods other than the trading platform, such as paying for goods through personal WeChat of customer service.

When there is a dispute between the two parties due to the quality of the product, the merchant claims that it is not liable on the grounds that the payment has not been made through the trading platform.

Article 5 of the "Regulations" clarifies that in the process of selling goods or providing services on the platform, its staff guides consumers to pay by means other than the payment methods provided by the trading platform, and consumers claim that the operators on the platform are responsible for the seller of goods. Or the responsibility of the service provider, the people's court will not support the defense of the operator on the platform on the grounds that the payment has not been made through the trading platform.

　　The fifth is to clarify the responsibility for the failure to publicize the transfer of online stores to protect the reasonable trust of consumers.

In reality, the transfer of online business accounts and stores is relatively common, but some operators do not publicize information changes in accordance with the law. After disputes arise, the transferor and the transferee shirk the blame again, making the protection of consumers' rights in an uncertain state.

Article 6 of the "Regulations" makes it clear that operators on the platform transfer online accounts and stores to other operators, but fail to publicize the change of relevant business entity information in accordance with the law. The actual operator's business activities cause damage to consumers, and consumers have the right to It is advocated that the registered operator and the actual operator should bear the liability for compensation and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers to the greatest extent.

　　Sixth, it is clear that the contract of fraudulent purchase, review, and traffic is invalid, and the chain of "black and gray production" in the online consumer market is cut off.

With the rapid development of the online consumer market, there are also some unhealthy and non-standard problems, such as the emergence of "black and gray products" such as applications and operation teams that specialize in brushing orders, reviews, and traffic, deliberately creating false records and infringing on consumption. Disrupting the market order.

The judicial interpretation clarifies that a contract signed by an e-commerce operator and others to conduct false publicity in the form of fictitious transactions, fictitious clicks, fabricated user reviews, etc., shall be invalidated by the people's court in accordance with the law, and market entities shall be guided to regulate their operations.

　　Seventh, clarify the legal consequences of damages caused by prizes, gifts, and redemption products, and standardize online promotions.

Article 8 of the Judicial Interpretation stipulates that the e-commerce operators shall be liable for damages caused to consumers by prizes, gifts or commodities exchanged by consumers in promotional activities. It is claimed to be exempted on the grounds of redemption.

　　Eighth, it is clear that commitments higher than the statutory compensation standards should be abided by, and operators' awareness of honesty and integrity should be strengthened.

In practice, sometimes operators make promises that are higher than the statutory compensation standard, but once disputes arise, the operators refuse to honor their promises.

Article 10 of the "Regulations" makes it clear that if an operator on the platform sells goods or provides services that damage the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, the compensation standard it promises to consumers is higher than the relevant statutory compensation standard. If the consumer claims that the operator on the platform compensates as promised, The people's court shall support it in accordance with the law.

　　The ninth is to clarify the civil responsibilities of online live broadcast marketing and guide the healthy development of new formats.

In recent years, the online live broadcast e-commerce industry has developed rapidly.

How to guide the healthy development of new business forms and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers is indeed a new issue facing judicial practice.

Judicial Interpretation provides for commercial online live broadcast marketing.

Article 11 stipulates the circumstances in which operators on the platform open online live broadcast rooms to sell goods, and clarify that the staff of the operators on the platform make false propaganda, etc., and the operators on the platform shall be liable for compensation.

Article 12 stipulates the responsibilities of live broadcast studio operators.

In response to the problem that consumers cannot clearly identify the actual sales subject in online live broadcast marketing in practice, this article clarifies that the live broadcast room operator must be able to prove that it has marked that it is not a seller and that it is an actual seller, and must reach a level sufficient to make consumers Otherwise, consumers have the right to claim that the operator of the live broadcast room bears the responsibility of the seller of goods.

If the operator of the live broadcast room has fulfilled its obligations, the people's court shall determine it based on factors such as the appearance of the transaction, the agreement between the live broadcast room operator and the operator, the mode of cooperation with the operator, the transaction process, and consumer perception. , to leave room for individual discretion and future development.

At the same time, the judicial interpretation uses 4 clauses to stipulate the responsibilities of the live broadcast marketing platform, including the self-operated responsibility of the live broadcast marketing platform, the first payment responsibility when the real information of the live broadcast room operator cannot be provided, the joint and several liability for failing to fulfill the obligation of food business qualification review, and Joint and several liability in case of knowing or ought to know wrongdoing.

　　Tenth, improve the civil liability system for take-out catering, and protect the safety of the people on the tip of their tongues.

In recent years, takeaway catering has been widely favored by consumers, especially since the outbreak of the new crown epidemic, the takeaway catering industry has made great progress.

However, due to the virtual and cross-regional nature of take-out catering, consumers are also facing potential food safety hazards.

In order to better protect the lives, health and safety of the people, Article 18 of the Judicial Interpretation stipulates that operators of online catering service platforms fail to register their real names, review licenses for online catering service providers in accordance with the law, or fail to report or stop providing online transactions. Platform services and other obligations damage the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and consumers have the right to claim that the operator of the online catering service platform and the online catering service provider bear joint and several liability.

Article 19 clarifies that online catering service providers shall not claim exemption from liability on the grounds that the order is entrusted to others for processing and production, and strengthen judicial protection of food safety.