The Beijing Internet Court (BIC) recently concluded a dispute case over corporate reputation rights, holding that maliciously editing interview footage, adding misleading subtitles or visual labels, and fabricating or distorting the interviewee's original statements in a manner that damages a company's reputation constitutes infringement of corporate reputation rights and gives rise to liability for damages.

Case Background

The plaintiff, a food company, is a privately owned enterprise engaged in the production and sale of ice cream products. The defendant media company produced the interview program at issue, which has been broadcast on multiple television channels. Defendant Jia is the media company's founder, legal representative, and the host of the interview program.

To promote the program, the defendants edited the interview with the plaintiff's legal representative, Yi, into a short video lasting just over one minute. During the editing process, they deliberately altered the context of one of Yi's remarks. In the original interview, Yi was quoting a raw material supplier as saying, "That's the price. Take it or leave it." Through selective editing and altered subtitles, however, the edited version presented the remarks as though it had been directed by Yi to consumers, thereby distorting its original meaning and portraying him in a negative light.

The defendants subsequently published the edited video on multiple online platforms. Some versions displayed television station logos to enhance the video's apparent credibility. The video went viral online, generated extensive negative comments and abusive remarks, and repeatedly appeared on trending-topic lists.

Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff to remove the video and issue a clarification, the defendants failed to do so promptly. Jia also reposted the video on his personal social media account, further expanding its dissemination.

The plaintiff subsequently released the complete interview and issued public clarification statements. However, the negative public opinion persisted. To mitigate the reputational harm, the plaintiff retained several media companies to manage the online public opinion crisis, incurring substantial expenses. The plaintiff therefore brought an action against the two defendants, seeking a public apology and compensation of more than 10 million yuan ($1.47 million) for its economic losses.

Court Findings

The court held that where online media outlets edit and publish interview videos, they shall faithfully reflect the interviewee's original meaning.

In this case, the defendant media company maliciously edited the interview, added misleading subtitles and visual labels, and fabricated and distorted the statements made by the plaintiff's legal representative before publishing the edited video online. As a result, the public's evaluation of the plaintiff company was lowered, thereby infringing its corporate reputation rights.

The court further found that Jia, as both the host of the interview program and the legal representative of the media company, was fully aware that the edited video misrepresented the interviewee's original statements. Even after receiving repeated requests from the plaintiff to remove the content, Jia continued to repost it through his personal account, thereby expanding the impact of the infringement. Jia therefore also bore liability for infringing the plaintiff's reputation rights.

The court held that property losses resulting from infringement of a company's reputation generally fall into two categories.

The first consists of direct losses, including reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in clarifying false information, restoring the company's reputation, and protecting its lawful rights.

The second consists of lost profits directly attributable to the infringement, such as canceled orders, terminated business cooperation, or other commercial opportunities that would have been highly likely to materialize but for the infringing conduct.

In this case, the plaintiff's expenditures on reputation restoration constituted direct losses. The infringement occurred during the nationwide "618" online shopping festival, which also coincided with the peak sales season for ice cream products. The court found that, had the infringement not occurred, the plaintiff would have been highly likely to generate revenue through product distribution and livestreaming sales. Accordingly, the losses arising from reduced orders and livestreaming income constituted loss of expected profits and were recoverable.

Applying the principle of full compensation and based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that both categories of losses were directly caused by the defendants' infringing conduct.

Judgment

The BIC ordered the defendant media company and Jia to publish a public apology to the plaintiff.

The court further ordered the media company to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses in the amount of two million yuan, while Jia was ordered to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of an additional 300,000 yuan.

The defendants appealed the first-instance judgment. The Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Judge's Remarks

A company's reputation is an important commercial asset that directly affects its market reputation, business opportunities, and long-term development. In the digital era, false or misleading online content can spread rapidly, trigger widespread negative public opinion, and cause reputational harm that is often difficult to remedy.

This case makes it clear that maliciously editing interview content, adding misleading subtitles or labels, and fabricating or distorting an interviewee's original statements in a manner that lowers a company's public reputation constitutes infringement of corporate reputation rights. The judgment demonstrates courts' commitment to curbing malicious traffic-generation practices and online conduct that defames or disparages businesses, while providing effective judicial protection for the lawful rights and interests of market entities.

Given the speed and wide reach of online communication, even minor infringing content may spread rapidly and cause damage that is difficult to remedy. Promptly stopping the infringement is therefore often the most effective means of preventing further harm. Accordingly, where appropriate, the law permits rights holders to take reasonable self-help measures to mitigate the consequences of online infringement.