Consumers have the freedom to "badly review" and the power to "stay away"

Source: China Economic Network

News Background:

In February 2020, Zhang Ming (pseudonym), a graduate student of a university in Beijing, purchased a re-examination class of the "Liberal Arts Examination Network", and more than a month later, under the topic of knowing "how is the Wenkao Network", he wrote an anonymous answer : "Wenkao tigers are looking at the shelves on WeChat, who dares to use their real name will be violently attacked by the Internet", and was sued by the Wenkao Network for infringing on the right to reputation. The Xingbin District Court of Laibin City, Guangxi Province, held that the wording was insulting or defamatory, and the first instance judgment zhang Ming apologized to Wenkao.com and compensated for economic losses, and both the original defendants have recently filed an appeal.

Creative photo by China Economic Network Ouyunhai Productions

Netizens want the freedom to give "bad reviews"

Legally speaking, whether Zhang Ming and others infringe on the right to reputation of others is debatable. As a consumer, you have the right to give a bad rating to an unsatisfactory product or service, and the merchant has a certain tolerance obligation for the bad review. To be fair, Zhang Ming's negative evaluation may not be pleasant, but it is not out of thin air and out of nothing. Zhang Ming purchased the services of the Wenkao Network in advance, and after the course, he thought that the quality of the course was average, which had the above bad evaluation. Since there is such a "fact" as a foreshadowing, it is not possible to talk about malicious attacks and violations of personality rights.

After this lawsuit, I believe that the majority of netizens have a good idea of "how about the Wenkao network". Companies are happy to receive positive reviews and are reluctant to accept bad reviews, but consumers want to see real reviews, and many people will deliberately look at bad reviews before placing an order to learn from the past. People also want to have true freedom of speech to give bad reviews, and not to get into trouble telling the truth. Although the wenkao network can defend its rights through litigation, public opinion almost one-sidedly supports Zhang Ming, and the gains and losses are worth the reflection of enterprises.

Find the line between reasonable bad reviews and malicious defamation

According to Zhang Ming, he has seen many times that "the staff of the Wenkao Network published the WeChat accounts and chat content given to the negative evaluation candidates in WeChat groups and other places." Citizens' personal information and privacy are protected by law, and the disclosure of consumers' personal WeChat accounts and chat content has constituted infringement. In addition, the staff of Wenkao Network also said that if consumers give them praise, they will be given some free "benefits", such as free materials, services, etc., which clearly violates the "Notice on Soliciting Opinions on the Provisions on Prohibiting Online Unfair Competition (Draft for Public Comment)" issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation and Administration. If these circumstances are true, it will not only prove that the "Internet riot" is not a fabrication of facts, which is far from insulting and defaming, but also that the legal responsibility of the relevant enterprises must be investigated.

In the view of relevant enterprises, the "bad evaluation" of Zhang Ming and others infringed on their right to reputation and objectively caused economic losses. However, from the actual situation, the harm is not great. Zhang Ming's message, regardless of the harsh language, the negative impact of the few disseminations on the enterprise after publication and other practical harms can be described as minimal, not to mention that the report also mentions that Zhang Ming's comments on the course also contain a number of positive evaluations.

Where is the boundary between reasonable bad reviews and malicious slander? In judicial practice, it is usually considered from the following angles: whether the bad evaluation is based on real transactions, whether the number of bad evaluations basically corresponds to the number of transactions, whether the situation stated in the bad evaluation is basically true and objective, and whether the bad evaluation has actually damaged the reputation of the business operator.

Bad reviews are not free, and praise is meaningless. Evaluation is word of mouth, praise is equal to publicity in disguise, and bad reviews are the guide to avoid pits. The original intention of the platform to set up an evaluation mechanism is to help consumers protect their own rights and interests, so that other consumers have experience to refer to and avoid falling into the pit, and protect the rights and interests of more consumers. At the same time, it can also enable merchants to maintain a sense of awe for consumers, do a better job of their products and services, and make the market environment more healthy and orderly. Individual merchants use praise cashback, bad reviews and harassment and other means to deceive consumers, affecting the healthy development of market order.

The correct exercise of the right of bad evaluation has become the expectation of the whole society

Although the court has discretion over whether the speech is infringing, there are rules to follow in law and practice. What is puzzling is that the first-instance judgment of this case clearly stated four elements, but it came to the conclusion that Zhang Ming constituted infringement of the right to reputation. Only the freedom to praise without criticism is not freedom, there is no continuous progress without hearing pertinent criticism, and frank and equal communication and dialogue between the two sides will help maximize the benefits. Nowadays, the shopping platform has banned "praise cashback", and the correct exercise of the right to bad evaluation has become the common expectation of the whole society, and judicial adjudication can and should play a good role in guiding behavior and leading public opinion.

Ignoring the existence of the rule of law, the market economy will only be reduced to a chicken feather. As consumers, when evaluating goods and services, we should pay attention to verbal expression to avoid rights crossing the line; and businesses should reflect on how to face bad reviews from consumers, rather than busy controlling and suppressing, they may wish to focus on the quality of goods and services, so as to go more stable and go further.

(The above comprehensive workers daily, southern daily, guangming network, red network)

In a nutshell:

@ Sugar heap or no sugar: bad reviews are written well, then it is not called bad reviews.

@ Half a little watermelon: This is even a simple emotional catharsis.

@ McCray has long been used: when you look for a research institute, you really have to take a good look at the comment area.

China Economic Network Editor's Afterword:

In fact, the "praise" of the same color is not a good thing for the business operation, and no business dares to guarantee that it will not receive a "bad review", and the appropriate "bad review" can spur the enterprise to improve its development. Since the merchant does not have the freedom to give consumers a "legitimate bad review", then the consumer also has the right to "refuse to stay away". Of course, why is the emphasis on relying on "judicial interpretation"? To be fair and just, we first need to clarify the boundary between reasonable bad reviews and malicious slander.