The Peking University E-commerce Law Research Center hosted its 2024 annual conference on Dec 21, inviting representatives from governmental, industrial, legal and academic circles to share insights on exploring the development of the platform economy.

Participants discussed the institutional framework of the platform economy, and the connotations and boundaries of online platforms' liabilities. The conference also released a list of 10 representative cases from 2024 on e-commerce law. Four cases handled by the Beijing Internet Court (BIC) were included.

Case 1

A case of an information network sales contract

- Community group shopping operators shall bear seller's liability if they fail to prove they are only online service providers

Handling judge Wang Hongxia

Case summary

The plaintiff surnamed Dong purchased groceries through an online shopping platform with the payee being the company A, defendant A. It was found that the quantity delivered was significantly less than ordered. Company A failed to provide evidence that it was merely an online platform service provider instead of the seller of the goods. Defendant B, the selling company, also denied selling the goods involved to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that company A, as the operator of the platform, sold substandard goods and should be jointly liable for compensation, alongside the together with defendant C, the production company and the selling company.

The BIC ruled that company A shall bear liability for the refund, and that company C shall bear punitive compensation liability of 500 yuan ($68.5).

Significance

In cases of community group shopping on e-platforms such as WeChat groups and mini programs, operators of the programs are required to disclose the seller’s entity information through proper means. If such disclosure  failure to do so, denying consumers’ their rights (lack of identifiableentity) in the process, the platform operators will be held liable as sellers, if they cannot prove that they are only the online service provider and give the identity of the sellers. If such disclosure is not made and it hinders consumers' ability to assert their rights, platform operators, who cannot prove they are merely providing a service and not involved in the sale, will be held liable as sellers. 

Case 2

A case of network infringement liability

- Online service providers should exercise a higher duty of care when reviewing information related to minors

Handling judge Yan Jun

Case summary

A minor surnamed Li had a disagreement with her classmate surnamed Wang over a trivial matter at school. Wang entrusted another classmate surnamed Guo to make a video about Li using a social media app operated by the defendant company. The video contained Li’s personal information, including her portrait, name and WeChat account ID, and included sexual rumors and solicitation advertisements. The video went viral online upon release, garnering over 30,000 views in a single day. Upon discovering this, Li reported it to the police, and the video was taken down from the internet due to the filing of complaints. Subsequently, Li filed a lawsuit with the BIC, demanding that the company compensate her for mental distress and reasonable expenses incurred in safeguarding her rights.

The BIC held that, in determining whether a network service provider should bear civil liability, the principle most favorable to minors should be upheld, considerating of specific circumstances of the case. Minors are vulnerable to harm, and information dissemination on the internet is instantaneous and widespread. Once the right to personality is violated online, the damage could be irreversible. Therefore, network service providers have a higher duty of care in reviewing information involving minors.

In this case, the video in question clearly showed a close-up of Li's face, indicating a high likelihood that the subject was a minor. The video used extremely vulgar and offensive language to insult and attack Li, and disclosed personal information such as her name and WeChat ID. This  not only disturbed her personal peace and privacy, but also severely infringed on her right to reputation. The illegal nature of the infringing content was evident and identifiable, and the video quickly garnered significant online attention. Moreover, the defendant failed to prove that they took measures such as keyword screening or manual review.

Therefore, this case meets the legal criteria that the network service provider should have been aware of the user's infringement but failed to take the necessary measures to prevent and stop the infringement. Thus, it should bear joint liability with the user. In this case, Li chose to hold the operator of the company fully responsible, which was legally justified, and the court supported this claim.

Significance

This is a typical case of lawful punishment of online violence and campus bullying.

Due to the fact that minors are not yet fully mature in mind and body and have insufficient self-protection abilities, coupled with the characteristics of fast dissemination and wide impact of personality rights infringement through the internet, it is even more necessary to strengthen the special and prioritized protection of minors in cyberspace. The ruling in this case clearly stated that besides bearing the obligation of post-disposal of "notification and takedown", network service providers should also fulfill the duty of taking preventive measures before infringement occurs and the duty of handling the infringement while it is happening, when they are or should be aware of it. Especially for illegal information severely infringing on the personality rights of minors, network service providers should, in accordance with the principle most favorable to minors, fulfill the legal obligations of online protection, and proactively monitor and handle such content in a timely manner. 

Case 3

A case on right to privacy and personal information protection.

Without consumer consent, an offline store's online mini-program does not have the right to access the consumer's offline transaction information.

Handling judge Cui Lu

Case summary

An offline store operated by a company based in Qingdao, Shandong province, was associated with a WeChat mini-program of the same name, managed by the defendant, an e-commerce company based in Beijing.

On Oct 10, 2021, the plaintiff surnamed Ma shopped at the offline store and scanned the product barcode at the checkout to create an order for payment.

The checkout screen displayed a QR code for "Scan to Pay," with payment options including Alipay, WeChat Pay and the store's mini-program. Ma used the WeChat function to scan the QR code, which redirected to the store's WeChat mini-program. The mini-program immediately displayed the detailed transaction information including the store name, product names and transaction time. Ma asserted that, since he was shopping offline at the store and making a WeChat payment offline, without invoking or using the store's WeChat mini-program (plus Ma had no balance at the WeChat mini-program). After scanning the "Scan to Pay" QR code, the store's WeChat mini-program obtained Ma’s offline shopping information, infringing upon their personal information rights.

Ma eventually sued the defendant at the BIC, seeking an apology. The defendant argued that obtaining the plaintiff's transaction information was based on the plaintiff's authorization and was not illegally obtained, thus not infringing upon the plaintiff's personal information rights. After investigation, it was found that the WeChat mini-program's "User Service Agreement" and "Privacy Policy" did not contain clauses seeking consumers’ consent to access consumers' offline transaction records.

The BIC held that the transaction information of the plaintiff’s purchase in the store constituted personal information. According to Article 13 of China’s Personal Information Protection Law, personal information handlers may only process personal information with the individual's consent or when it is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract in which the individual is a party. The WeChat mini-program operated by the defendant did not explicitly state in the "User Service Agreement" or "Privacy Policy" that the mini-program in question would access consumers' offline transaction order information. Nor did it notify and get consent from the consumer on obtaining the transaction information.

In addition, the plaintiff purchased goods in the offline store where the counterparty was not the defendant in this case. The QR code displayed in the store only indicated "Scan to Pay". So, for consumers, the QR code should only serve the payment function. Scanning the QR code leading to the mini-program accessing offline transaction records was not necessary and did not fall under the category of "necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract". Hence, the act of the defendant constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's personal information rights. The BIC ruled that the defendant should make a written apology to the plaintiff.

Following the first-instance judgment, the defendant appealed. During the second-instance trial, the defendant withdrew the appeal, which the second-instance court approved, making the first-instance judgment effective.

Significance

With the deepening digitization of the real economy, integrated online and offline self-operated businesses are growing in scale. These type of stores usually have independently operated apps, WeChat mini-programs, and other online platforms that integrate payment and consumption. While this business model has its unique advantages, it can also pose risks of personal information infringement in terms of personal information processing.

This case determined that consumers' offline shopping information, which includes transaction store details and payment prices, constitutes personal information generated by consumers in the course of their transaction activities. When operators handle this type of information, they should adhere to principles of legality, legitimacy and necessity. If there is a need to share this information among different online and offline entities, operators should inform consumers fully and obtain their consent.

This case serves as a reminder of the personal information risks faced during the deep integration of the real economy and the digital economy, providing guidance to promote high-quality development in related industries and economies.

Case 4

A case of an information network sales contract dispute

Blind box-type products opened online are not eligible for the "Seven-Day Unconditional Return" policy.

Handling judge Yan Jun

Case summary

The plaintiff surnamed Han purchased over 50 blind box-type products from an online store, spending over 20,000 yuan ($2,700). Subsequently, the plaintiff changed their mind and, before receiving the goods, applied for the "Seven-Day Unconditional Return" policy, which was denied by the store. As a result, the plaintiff sued the operator of the online store (the defendant) at the BIC.

The defendant argued that the purchased items were blind box-type goods. The store has placed prominent notices on the product details page and with the ordering process stating “After opening the lucky bag, the seven-day unconditional return policy is not applicable". The plaintiff had already opened the lucky bags online, making the seven-day unconditional return policy inapplicable.

The BIC held that based on the existing evidence, the product details page clearly stated “the product is a special type of product. After opening the lucky bag, the seven-day unconditional return policy is not supported".

Considering the special nature of the lucky bag products, which is the blind box type, the products had already been "opened" online, and with the content known, the value of the products had been realized. Requesting the store accept an unconditional return at this point would inevitably affect the regular sales status of the products.

The lucky bag products in question should fall under Article 25 of China's Consumer Protection Law, which stipulates that goods unsuitable for return due to their nature and confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase are exempt from the "seven-day unconditional return" policy. The store had already clearly indicated on the product sales page that the product "is not eligible for a seven-day unconditional return", and consumers had explicitly acknowledged this before making the purchase. The court ruled to reject all of the plaintiff's claims.

Significance

The core value of blind box-type products lies in the "strong sense of pleasant surprise that consumers experience when opening the blind box to reveal an unknown style".

As its essence is rooted in uncertainty and immediate gratification, once a blind box product has been "opened" online and its contents are known, its value has been realized. When online stores clearly inform consumers that blind boxes are not eligible for a "seven-day unconditional return or exchange" after being opened, they are complying with legal regulations and the unique nature of such products.

In the digital economy, there have been significant changes in new types of products and business forms. This case gives full consideration to the particularities of online transactions involving new types of products, offering arguments on the applicability of the "seven-day unconditional return policy" to blind box products. This contributes to the development of new cultural industries in the digital economy.