"This online store sells fakes, and relatives don't buy here, they have to buy them officially!" Wenzhou Ruian, Ms. Wang gave the above evaluation after buying a box of nuts on an online shopping platform. Unexpectedly, because of this bad review, Ms. Wang was sued by the online shop owner for 50,000 yuan in compensation. (Source: Reddit)
Ms. Wang likes online shopping and often buys things in this online store This time, as usual, she bought a box of nuts in the online store, and when the goods were opened and looked at, she was a little disappointed. This time, although the delivery speed was as fast as usual and the packaging was the same as before, she felt that the quality of the nuts was obviously not as good as before.
Therefore, when Ms. Wang commented, she wrote the following content: "The speed is fast, the packaging is the same as usual, but after opening... Did I buy a fake? Or is the overall quality decreasing? Looking at the nuts with pits are more afraid, will it be a rat knocked off... Dried cranberries look terrible. Remember before there was exposure to sell fakes... Mind the pro, cautious shooting, not worse than dozens of dollars, you can go to the official to buy. ”
As we all know, the online store is very concerned about the customer's evaluation, and even some online stores, in order to make customers praise, will give customers back red envelopes, ranging from 2-5 yuan, some even a dozen pieces of more than twenty, can be described as for the praise is really spelled. Because, a good review from a customer may bring more traffic, and a bad review will make the online store lose more potential customers.
Ms. Wang such a bad review, of course, the owner can not accept, he contacted Ms. Wang, let her delete the bad review, but the evaluation has passed the deletion period, that is to say, this bad review can not be deleted.
Ms. Wang is not an unreasonable person, since it cannot be deleted, then I will add a good review.
Later, Ms. Wang added an evaluation of the product, "The last time was a misunderstanding, and later it was confirmed that it was indeed genuine, I was relieved, this time I came to buy it again, and the delivery was very fast." Buyers who have doubts can find official customer service to check the authenticity. As for the pit on the nuts, the official reply is that each warehouse is processed and stored differently, but it does not affect the taste, we can buy with confidence, the inconvenience caused to the seller, deeply sorry, next time come back. ”
It is said that such a follow-up review, the shop owner should be able to accept, after all, Ms. Wang's attitude is sincere, and also admitted her mistake and apologized.
However, the owner of the shop is still not spared, he believes that if Ms. Wang's legitimate rights and interests are violated, it should be resolved through formal channels, rather than smearing the store on the Internet and persuading others not to buy, which brings him a lot of losses. Although a correction and apology were later made through the post-evaluation, the previous bad review could not be deleted, and the bad impact caused was still there, so she appealed to the court, asking Ms. Wang to delete the bad review, publicly apologize on the Internet, and compensate 50,000 yuan for economic losses.
The Shui On court held that consumers have the right to evaluate the purchased goods on the online platform, and Ms. Wang only expressed her shopping feelings, and did not insult or slander the merchant, so it did not constitute infringement, and rejected the merchant's litigation claim. Unsatisfied, the merchant appealed to the Wenzhou Intermediate Court, and the Wenzhou Intermediate Court upheld the original judgment after trial.
I believe that the Ryan Court's judgment is very correct, safeguarding the rights and interests of consumers to publish their shopping experiences on the Internet, and cracking down on the trend of merchants letting consumers delete bad reviews at every turn.
Coincidentally, a graduate student of a university in Beijing published a negative evaluation of the "Liberal Arts Examination and Research Network" of the examination and research training institution in the Zhihu message area, and was awarded by the court to compensate for economic losses of 2500 yuan.
The same is a negative evaluation, why is Ms. Wang a "reasonable bad review" and a graduate student is a "malicious infringement"? Here, we will talk about the difference between the two.
The Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that consumers have the right to supervise goods and services and the protection of consumer rights and interests, and the right to know the true situation of the goods they purchase or use or the services they receive.
Through her own evaluation, Ms. Wang, on the one hand, expresses her shopping feelings, but also reminds other consumers to indirectly meet the right to know of other consumers. Graduate students are different, he used words such as "tiger eye" and "Internet violence" in relevant remarks to insult or slander others, constituting an infringement of the right to reputation.
Article 1024 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects enjoy the right to reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon the right to reputation of others by means of insults, slander, or other means.
Reasonable bad reviews and malicious slander are only separated by a wall, a thought difference, a little attention, reasonable bad reviews will become "malicious slander".
When we conduct evaluations, we must firmly abide by the "three bottom lines".
First, consumers' evaluation of businesses and services must be based on facts, you must be a consumer, you cannot hearsay. Second, the evaluation can be harsh, but there can be no insulting and derogatory language. Third, if it is a big V submission, the platform must have a basic review obligation when reviewing. ”
In this case, Ms. Wang's evaluation on the platform after receiving the goods was a comprehensive judgment of the quality of the nuts, an expression of her shopping experience, and the right to inform other consumers, without insulting and defamatory words.
Online shop owners, as operators, should exercise the necessary tolerance for consumers' product evaluations, and cannot require every buyer to give praise, and cannot simply equate "bad reviews" with infringement of the right to reputation.
Finally, once again, we remind everyone that operators should work hard to improve product quality and service, rather than not listening to consumer opinions; and consumers should fully understand that the online comment mechanism is not a tool to vent personal emotions at will, and should pay attention to the boundary between criticism and infringement, and rationally safeguard their rights.
What do you think about this? Welcome to @Freedom Vanguard to learn about the law from life.
