News
Comprehensive sea, air and land transportation coverage. Safe, timely and efficient!
On March 2, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference and issued the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Online Consumption Disputes (I) (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions). The Provisions mainly stipulate the rights and obligations under online consumption contracts, identification of liable parties, civil liability for food delivery services and other matters, and shall enter into force on March 15, 2022.
The Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law establishes the seven-day no-reason return system. In practice, however, some merchants decline or refuse returns on various pretexts. The Provisions clarify that where consumers open and inspect goods out of necessity to examine the products and the goods remain intact, e-commerce operators may not refuse to apply the seven-day no-reason return system merely on the ground that the goods have been opened.
In practice, consumers usually do not unpack and inspect goods in detail upon receipt. Some standard clauses in online consumption contracts unilaterally stipulate that consumers may not raise quality objections after signing for the goods. Such standard clauses are obviously unreasonable. The Provisions specify that standard clauses stating that "signing for goods shall be deemed acceptance that the quality complies with the agreement" are invalid.
In online shopping, merchants often give away free gifts or prizes. Some products are redeemed by consumers using coupons or points, which constitutes a merchant’s promotional activity. The Provisions state that where prizes, free gifts or redeemed products cause harm to consumers, e-commerce operators shall also bear compensation liability and may not claim exemption on the grounds that prizes and gifts are provided free of charge or the products are obtained via redemption.
In practice, merchants sometimes make promises exceeding statutory compensation standards such as "tenfold compensation for counterfeit goods". When consumers discover counterfeit or shoddy products that infringe their legitimate rights and interests after receiving goods, merchants refuse to honour such promises. In response, the Provisions stipulate that where consumers claim compensation from platform operators in accordance with the promises, the people’s courts shall support such claims in accordance with the law.
The online live-stream e-commerce industry has developed rapidly in recent years. How to guide the sound development of this new business form and protect consumers’ legitimate rights and interests?
The Provisions regulate commercial online live-stream marketing. It clarifies that where an operator on a platform opens a live-stream room to sell goods, and its staff cause harm to consumers through false publicity or other acts during live streaming, if consumers claim compensation liability against the platform operator, the people’s courts shall support such claims.
Zheng Xuelin, Presiding Judge of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court, explained that to address the difficulty for consumers to identify the actual seller in live-stream marketing, the Provisions require live-stream room operators to prove that they have clearly indicated they are not sellers and identified the actual sellers to an extent sufficient for consumers to distinguish. Otherwise, consumers have the right to hold live-stream room operators liable as product sellers. Where a live-stream room operator has fulfilled the marking obligation, people’s courts shall make a comprehensive judgment by considering factors including transaction appearance, agreements between the live-stream operator and the merchant, their cooperation model, transaction process and consumers’ perception.
In practice, merchant customer service staff may guide consumers to make payments outside the trading platform, for example, paying the goods fee via the customer service’s personal WeChat account. When disputes arise over quality defects of goods, merchants refuse to bear liability on the ground that payment was not made through the trading platform.
The Provisions stipulate that in the course of selling goods or providing services, if staff of platform operators guide consumers to make payments via methods other than those provided by the trading platform, and consumers claim that the platform operators shall bear liability as sellers or service providers, people’s courts shall not uphold the defence raised by platform operators that payment was not completed through the platform.
The online food delivery industry has flourished in recent years. Nevertheless, due to the virtual and cross-regional nature of online catering services, consumers face hidden risks to food safety. For instance, some registered catering service providers operate illegally by exploiting loopholes in platform reviews without valid food hygiene qualifications or business licences.
Zheng Xuelin explained that the Provisions specify that where online catering service platform operators fail to complete real-name registration and licence review for registered catering providers in accordance with the law, or fail to perform obligations such as reporting and ceasing platform services, resulting in damage to consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, consumers have the right to claim joint and several liability against both the platform operators and the registered catering service providers. In addition, registered catering service providers may not claim exemption from operator liability on the ground that orders are processed by commissioned processors when consumers hold them accountable.
QQ客服