On December 16, the Center for E-Commerce Law of Peking University held the 2023 Annual Conference and the Symposium on the Fifth Anniversary of the Promulgation and Implementation of the E-Commerce Law. Zhao Ruigang, Vice President of the Beijing Internet Court, attended the symposium and shared his thoughts on the Internet Court's trial of online transaction cases. At the symposium, the Center for E-Commerce Law of Peking University released a report on ten typical cases.
The E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "E-Commerce Law") was officially promulgated on August 31, 2018 and came into force on January 1, 2019. Since the implementation of the E-Commerce Law, the E-Commerce Law Research Center of Peking University has conducted a multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the E-Commerce Law in various aspects every year, and formed a targeted evaluation report.
According to the report on the top ten typical cases released by the E-commerce Law Research Center of Peking University, Wu, a user of a short video platform, was permanently banned by the platform on the grounds that he was "suspected of violating the community convention and involving excessive attention to or browsing content related to minors" when he watched the video.
Wu said that he likes to watch dance videos, and does not over-browse relevant content involving minors, and it is normal to use the account involved in the case to browse and like relevant videos, and the videos are all from system recommendations. Wu believed that the platform's ban on his account involved in the case was extremely unreasonable, and sued the short video platform company to the court.
The short video platform company said that Wu's account involved in the case followed and liked a large number of videos with underage girls as the main content, and posted pornographic comments, and also uploaded videos of underage girls in violation of regulations, and there was excessive consumption of minors. In addition, the account involved in the case has been punished several times since March 2021. The conduct of the accounts involved in the case seriously violated the relevant national policies and regulations on the protection of minors, and the platform's ban on the accounts involved in the case was reasonable and lawful. After the trial, the Beijing Internet Court rejected all of the plaintiff Wu's claims.
According to the E-Commerce Law Research Center of Peking University, in this case, on the basis of a comprehensive investigation and strict review of the legality of the platform's exercise of "private power", the Beijing Internet Court made a decision to support the defendant platform to take corresponding punishment measures, which not only advocated the code of conduct for maintaining a clear online environment for minors, but also clarified the proper boundaries of the platform's exercise of "private power", and set a benchmark worthy of reference for subsequent judgments in similar cases.
Attached: Top 10 Typical Cases on the Fifth Anniversary of the Implementation of the E-Commerce Law
Series 1: Top 10 Typical Cases of E-commerce Platform Liability
Case 1: A dispute over a network service contract between Mr. Zhang and an information technology company – the e-commerce platform has the obligation to ensure security and the obligation to actively rescue virtual property transactions.
Case 2: Niu v. a company over a taxi transportation contract dispute - the online car-hailing driver has a violent criminal record, and the online car-hailing platform has the right to ban the online car-hailing driver's account in accordance with the law.
Case 3: Jin v. Beijing Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over cyber infringement liability—judicial determination of infringement of personal rights by an algorithmic risk control system.
Case 4: A dispute over a network service contract between Mr. Wu and a technology company in Beijing - a short video platform banning a pedophile account: The platform has the right to take management measures such as account banning or terminating services for violations of the rights and interests of minors based on algorithms.
Case 5: A network service contract dispute between a technology company in Hangzhou and Niu XX - a third-party game accessory platform should be liable for breach of contract if it fails to perform its obligation to ensure the security of virtual property.
Case 6: He XX v. Beijing Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over network infringement liability – determination of the duty of care of network service providers in atypical online infringement.
Case 7: Ding v. Cao et al., a dispute over an information network sales contract – the e-commerce platform undertook the obligation to ensure the safety of the food business operators on the platform.
Case 8: A product liability dispute between Mr. Wang and an information technology company – the takeaway platform should be jointly and severally liable for failing to review the qualifications of the catering service provider.
Case 9: A dispute between a cultural and creative company and a technology company over infringement of the right of information network transmission of works - the infringement case of the NFT digital work of "Fat Tiger Vaccination".
Case 10: A case of network service contract dispute between an industry and trade company A and an advertising company and an industry and trade company B – determination of the liability of an e-commerce platform under the safe harbor rule.
Series 2: Top 10 Typical Cases of E-commerce Platform Service Agreements and Transaction Rules
Case 1: Li XX v. a network company in Hangzhou, a network service contract dispute case - determination of the validity and liability of minors' game recharge.
Case 2: A (China) company v. Zheng and a trading company, a network service contract dispute case - review standards and liquidated damages for malicious complaints.
Case 3: Chang XX v. Xu XX and a third party, Ma XX, a network service contract dispute case - the contract concluded due to the dark traffic transaction is invalid.
Case 4: Song v. a network company in Zhejiang, a network service contract case - determination of virtual rights and interests of shopping platforms.
Case 5: Tang v. A Network Technology Co., Ltd., a network service contract dispute case - the contract for providing unhealthy content network services to minors is invalid.
Case 6: Singapore citizen v. a cross-border e-commerce platform over a dispute over a network service contract – the "first case" of the cross-border trade tribunal in the whole process.
Case 7: A dispute over a network service contract between Zhao and a network company in Zhejiang Province – Judicial Review Ideas for Algorithmic Discrimination on E-commerce Platforms.
Case 8: Chen v. a software service company in Hangzhou, a network service contract dispute case - judicial determination of traffic hijacking.
Case 9: A Technology Company v. B Network Company in a service contract dispute - Determination of the authenticity of traffic and contract validity of the list optimization service punished by the platform's algorithm.
Case 10: Wang v. a technology company and an information service company, a network service contract dispute between a user and a user with rights and interests in email accounts and email data.
Series 3: Top 10 Typical Cases of Consumer Rights and Interests Protection
Case 1: Gao v. a limited company, a dispute over an information network sales contract – an agreement that excludes the jurisdiction of the court of the country where the consumer is located from being invalid by means of standard clauses.
Case 2: A sports company v. an information consulting company in an online infringement liability dispute - consumers generally do not infringe on their right to reputation by "bad reviews" on the Internet.
Case 3: A dispute over a network service contract between Mr. Wu and a Beijing company – when there are exceptions to the content of the online consumption standard clause that has a significant interest in the consumer, it should be reminded in a conspicuous manner.
Case 4: Gao v. Yang, a dispute over an online information shopping contract, where a seller engages in business activities on a second-hand goods website and constitutes fraud, shall be liable for punitive damages.
Case 5: A dispute over an information network sales contract between Mr. Li and a bookstore - the store should be responsible for the behavior of the customer service of the online store.
Case 6: Zheng v. a company, a dispute over online infringement liability, in which business operators are not allowed to use consumer information in their possession for commercial publicity without permission.
Case 7: Qi XX v. Luo XX Online Information Shopping Contract Dispute – E-commerce operators should abide by the favorable promises made to consumers, and the interpretation of the promises should be carried out in accordance with the common perception of ordinary consumers.
Case 8: Chen Moumou v. an information technology company in Beijing, a network service contract dispute case - the use of website information aggregation errors to pretend to conclude a contract is not protected by the Consumer Rights Protection Law.
Case 9: Wang v. an e-commerce company in Beijing, a dispute over a network service contract – when the burden of performance costs is not clear, the platform company shall bear the fee for the user to unsubscribe from the commercial promotion SMS.
Case 10: A dispute over an information network sales contract between Mr. Chen and a company - the online sale of electric vehicles exaggerated the battery life, and the merchant was sentenced to refund one and pay three for fraud.
Upstream news reporter Nie Hui