[ad_1]
According to the official WeChat account of the “Fuyang Court”, on the afternoon of November 20, 2020, the Fuyang District People’s Court, Hangzhou City, held a public hearing and sentenced Plaintiff Guo Bing and defendant Hangzhou Wild Animal World Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Wild Animal World) in a service contract dispute. ,Ruling that Wildlife World should compensate Guo Bing for the loss of contractual interest and transportation expenses totaling 1,038 yuan, and remove information on facial features, including photos sent by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card .; He rejected other claims made by Guo Bing to confirm the invalidity of the relevant content in the Wild Animal World store notice and the SMS notification.
Image source: Official WeChat account of “Fuyang Court”
The court found that in April 2019, Guo Bing paid 1,360 yuan to buy Wildlife World’s “365 days” annual two-person card to determine how to enter the park by fingerprint recognition. Guo Bing and his wife kept their names, identification numbers, phone numbers, etc., registered fingerprints and took photographs. Post Wildlife World adjusted the way annual card customers entered the park from fingerprint recognition to facial recognition, and replaced store signs. In July and October 2019, Wildlife World sent two text messages to Guo Bing, informing him of the replacement of the annual card entry recognition system and required the activation of the facial recognition system, otherwise he would not be able to enter the park normally.
Since then, the two sides have been unable to negotiate how to enter the park, refund the card and other related matters. Guo Bing then filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the relevant content in the Wild Animal World store advertisement and SMS notification, and requested that Wild Animal World breach the contract and commit fraud. Compensation for annual card fees, transportation costs, deletion of personal information, etc.
lawThe court concluded that the two parties in this case formed a service contract relationship due to the purchase of the park’s annual card, and then caused disputes due to the change in the way to enter the park. The focus of the dispute was actually the handling of the consumer’s personal information, especially fingerprints and human faces, etc. Identify the evaluation and standardization of information behavior.. Although Chinese law does not prohibit the collection and use of personal information at the consumer level, it emphasizes the supervision and management of the processing of personal information, that is, the collection of personal information should follow the principle of “legal, justified and necessary “and get stakeholders. Agree; the use of personal information must follow the principle of guaranteeing security, and must not be leaked, sold or illegally provided to third parties; When personal information is violated, the operator will assume the corresponding tort liability. In this case, when the customer applied for the annual card, Wildlife World informed the card buyer to provide certain personal information in the form of a shop notice, and did not make other unfair and unreasonable regulations on consumers and the customer’s right to know the consumption and personal information. The decision-making power of the information has not been violated. Guo Bing decided to provide personal information, such as fingerprints, and became a customer for the annual card. Wildlife World uses fingerprint recognition, facial recognition, and other biometric technologies in its business activities, and its behavior in itself does not violate the principles and requirements of the aforementioned laws. However, Wildlife World changed the original method of fingerprint recognition to facial recognition during the performance of the contract, which constitutes a unilateral breach of contract. Guo Bing does not expressly agree with this, so the relevant content of the store notice and SMS notification does not constitute The content of the contract between the two parties has no legal effect on Guo Bing, and Guo Bing, as a party observer, you have the right to demand that Wildlife World assume the corresponding legal responsibilities. When the two parties applied for the annual card, they agreed to use fingerprint recognition to enter the park. Guo Bing and his wife’s Wildlife World photo collection exceeded the legally necessary requirements, so it was not legitimate. Furthermore, no evidence was found during the trial that Wildlife World had committed fraud against Guo Bing.
In short, the Fuyang Court rendered the aforementioned first instance judgment in accordance with the law.
In this case, both parties entrusted the participation of agents ad litem in the judgment. Representatives of the National People’s Congress, CPPCC members and people from all walks of life heard the verdict, and the China Trial Open website broadcast the verdict.
Consultation in real time of the new global epidemic of pneumonia
Copyright notice
1This article is the original work of “Daily Economic News”.
2
Without permission from “Daily Economic News”, it may not be used in any way, including but not limited to reprint, extract, copy or create mirror images. Violators must be investigated.
3Copyright cooperation telephone: 021-60900099.
