Squid silk label showed containing additives Walmart was sentenced to ten times the compensation

Mr. Li purchased 29 packs of smoked grilled squid shredded by a seafood company in Dalian at a Wal-Mart branch, and after purchasing, he found that the ingredients displayed on the product label contained disodium succinate. Mr. Zhang believed that a Wal-Mart branch violated the provisions of the Food Safety Law, and sued the court to demand that a Wal-Mart branch refund the purchase price of 371.2 yuan and pay ten times the compensation of 3712 yuan. Recently, the Yanqing District People's Court of Beijing Municipality concluded the case and ruled in support of Mr. Zhang's litigation claim.

The plaintiff, Mr. Zhang, claimed that on a certain day in April 2016, he purchased 29 packages of smoked squid shreds produced by Dalian Seafood Co., Ltd. at Walmart, with a unit price of 12.8 yuan and a total purchase price of 371.2 yuan. After purchasing, Mr. Zhang found that the ingredients of the product contained disodium succinate. Mr. Zhang believed that Wal-Mart's behavior violated the provisions of China's food safety law, so he sued the court in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, and submitted evidence materials such as shopping receipts, physical products, and notices of reporting.

The defendant, Wal-Mart, argued that the goods involved in the case did not actually add disodium succinate, the manufacturer had label defects due to work errors, Wal-Mart Company did not know that the goods involved in the case did not meet the food safety standards and continued to sell, and Wal-Mart Company had fulfilled the necessary purchase inspection obligations, and did not know that the label did not meet food safety standards. In the case where the producer or seller of the food can produce evidence to prove that the food is a safe food, the consumer then claims punitive damages of ten times the compensation on the grounds of the defective label, violating the principle of proportionality between fault and liability. The plaintiff took the initiative to purchase food labeled disodium succinate, the purpose of which was obviously not to eat, and its intention to choose to buy the goods involved in the case was obviously for the purpose of making profits, and there was no misleading. The plaintiff purchased the goods involved in the case in a number of Wal-Mart stores, and its purchase behavior and purchase quantity were obviously not purchased to meet the needs of life, and its behavior disrupted the normal market economic order, seriously violated the principle of good faith, ignored judicial authority, and wasted judicial resources. Wal-Mart believes that the goods involved in the case are safe food and is not liable for ten times the compensation.

After trial, the court held that, combined with the evidentiary materials provided by the plaintiff, it could be determined that the physical products provided by Mr. Zhang were products purchased by Wal-Mart Company and produced by a seafood company in Dalian. According to the provisions of GB2760-2011 "National Food Safety Standard - Standard for the Use of Food Additives", the scope of permitted use of disodium succinate is limited to condiments, and the outer packaging of the product in question clearly states that disodium succinate contains disodium succinate in the ingredients, which has no basis and should be in violation of the above mandatory provisions, which is a food that does not meet food safety standards, rather than just a product label defect. According to the provisions of the Food Safety Law, if a consumer suffers damage due to food that does not meet food safety standards, he can claim compensation from the operator or from the producer for compensation for the loss. ...... In addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand compensation from producers or operators for compensation for food that does not meet food safety standards; ... Article 15 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases stipulates that if a food that does not meet the safety standards is produced or a food that is known to be a food that does not meet the safety standards, the consumer, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, shall, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, request compensation from the producer, Where the seller claims to pay ten times the price of compensation or claim compensation in accordance with other compensation standards prescribed by law, the people's court shall support it. In the end, the court upheld Mr. Zhang's claim to refund the purchase price and pay ten times the compensation.