Lufa Case [2024] 291
Post a bad review in a WeChat group,
Will it infringe on the right to reputation of the merchant?
Recently, a consumer in Muping, Yantai
I got into a lawsuit for this.
Let's follow the editor to take a look~
Brief facts of the case
"Remind everyone, you must keep your eyes open when buying a pot, this is the pot I bought......"
In 2022, Lao Zou signed a contract with a pot manufacturer and ordered a batch of pots and pans, but after the arrival of the goods, he found that this batch of pots had quality problems. After many repairs by the merchants, the new pot became an old pot, and Lao Zou was angry and posted in several WeChat business groups, such as "Everyone beware of it", "There are many pots, why choose him", "The after-sales service is very poor", "The boss has a problem" and other content...... Since then, some people in various WeChat groups have responded that there are also quality problems with the pots and pans ordered from the manufacturer.
The manufacturer believed that these remarks were purely fabricated, and because it believed that the untrue remarks released by the buyer, Lao Zou, had slandered and insulted the seller, and the resulting chain impact had caused serious damage to its goodwill and a decline in product sales, the manufacturer sued the Muping Court on the grounds that the right to reputation had been infringed, and demanded that Lao Zou apologize and compensate for the losses.
The manufacturer claimed that after the buyer communicated with the after-sales service, the after-sales service had reached an agreement with the buyer on various minor problems in the early stage, but the buyer violated the agreement and still spread false comments in the WeChat group and spread them outside the group, resulting in serious damage to the company's reputation and corporate image, and causing consumer groups to question and distrust the plaintiff's product quality, and the product sales were seriously impacted.
Lao Zou said that he only posted remarks in the WeChat group because of the problem with the product, and the people who participated in the discussion in the group were all people who purchased the plaintiff's problematic product, and he was not subjectively at fault, not an infringement of the right to reputation, and the loss claimed by the plaintiff had nothing to do with the defendant.
Heard by the courts
Focus of controversy: Does the buyer's negative review behavior in the WeChat group infringe on the merchant's right to reputation?
After trial, the Muping People's Court held that whether or not liability for infringement of the right to reputation was constituted should be determined on the basis of the fact that the victim's reputation was indeed damaged, the perpetrator's conduct was illegal, there was a causal relationship between the illegal act and the harmful consequences, and the perpetrator's subjective fault.
In this case, from the previous disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant in other courts, it can be determined that disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendant over issues such as the after-sales of products and the payment of goods, and the remarks made by the defendant in the WeChat group were based on his own experience, and he made statements about the problems arising during the use of the products and the after-sales situation of the plaintiff, expressing his subjective feelings and personal experience, rather than fabricating and disseminating fictitious facts out of thin air, and the content of the evaluation did not reach the level of insult and slander.
In the evidence submitted by the plaintiff that other WeChat customers did not continue to cooperate with the plaintiff, the customers did not clearly state that they did not continue to purchase the plaintiff's equipment because of the defendant's remarks in the WeChat group, and it was impossible to prove the causal relationship between the defendant's remarks in the WeChat group and the fluctuation of the plaintiff's business volume. The plaintiff also did not submit evidence to prove that its social credit was reduced due to the damage to its reputation, and did not submit evidence to prove the formation of its damages and losses, so its claim was not supported, and the judgment rejected the plaintiff's claim.
The plaintiff appealed to the Yantai Intermediate People's Court against the first-instance judgment of the Muping Court, and the Yantai Intermediate People's Court upheld the first-instance judgment after trial.
What the judge said
Consumers have the right to criticize and comment on the product itself and the situation involved in the consumption process, which is the legitimate right of consumers. It should be noted that in this process, consumers need to fully understand that the Internet is not a tool to vent their personal emotions, and should pay attention to the boundary between criticism and infringement, avoid personal attacks or uncivilized language in the online environment, and rationally exercise their rights and resolve disputes.
Businesses should also recognize that operators should be tolerant of consumer evaluations as necessary. Consumers have the ability to rationally discriminate, and the decline in social credit and goodwill caused by negative reviews is more likely to be caused by the quality of their products and services not meeting the requirements of consumers, and bad reviews should not be simply equated with reputation infringement. Merchants should give full play to the positive incentive role of "bad reviews" and form a closed-loop model of product evaluation, rectification, promotion and supervision, so as to improve product quality, enhance service levels, and continuously improve the competitiveness of products in the market in the benign interaction with consumers.
How to define a bad review: There is only a "wall" between a reasonable bad review and malicious defamation.
There should be a bottom line in the consumer's evaluation of businesses and services, and crossing the boundary will infringe on another right.
First, consumers' evaluation of businesses and services must be based on facts, and if consumers have not had transactions with business operators at all, the preconditions for their evaluation do not exist.
Second, whether a consumer's "negative review" is infringing should be determined by whether the situation stated by the consumer is basically true, and if it is true, even if the subjective comment is more violent, it should not be deemed to be an opportunity to slander or slander.
Third, if the buyer carries out the negative review in exchange for unequal trading conditions or hopes to meet some unreasonable requirements of the buyer, such as asking for additional gifts or obtaining additional discounts for free, etc., it can also be determined to be a malicious negative review according to the specific circumstances of the case, which is an infringement.
Links to legal provisions
Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests: The State encourages and supports all organizations and individuals to conduct social supervision of acts that harm the lawful rights and interests of consumers.
Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Concerning the Right to Reputation: Whether liability for infringement of the right to reputation is constituted shall be determined on the basis of the fact that the victim's reputation has been harmed, the perpetrator's conduct is unlawful, there is a causal relationship between the illegal act and the harmful consequences, and the perpetrator is subjectively at fault. Where written or oral forms insult or slander others, harming the reputation of others, it shall be found to be an infringement of others' right to reputation. Where the privacy of others is published without their consent, or the privacy of others is publicized in written or oral form, causing harm to the reputation of others, it is to be handled as an infringement of the reputation rights of others. Where the reputation of others is harmed due to serious inaccuracies in news reports, it shall be handled as an infringement of the right to reputation of others.
Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Concerning the Right to Reputation: Consumers' criticism or comments on the quality of the products or services of producers, operators, or sellers shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the right to reputation of others. However, where an opportunity is taken to slander or slander and harm their reputation, it shall be found to be an infringement of the right to reputation.
Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: A party shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own litigation claims are based or the facts on which the other party's litigation claims are based, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.