[ad_1]
Source: Beijing Commercial Daily
Original title: Online shopping Food safety problems E-commerce companies have a joint responsibility
On December 9, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Various Questions Relating to the Application of the Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Relating to Food Safety (1)” (hereinafter, the “Interpretation”), a total of 14 articles, dealing with food safety disputes involving online shopping The responsibility of the e-commerce platform, the “black workshop” and other practical matters have been stipulated, and are Of course, personal injury is not an element of punitive compensation. The “Interpretation” will be implemented on January 1, 2021.
E-commerce platforms must take responsibility
E-commerce platforms have become the “worst hit area” for food safety. According to the special report on online shopping contract disputes issued by the Supreme Law in November, from 2017 to the first half of 2020, people’s courts of all levels nationwide received 49,000 new online shopping contract disputes in First instance. Among them, about 30% of disputes involve e-commerce platforms, and food disputes accounted for almost half of online purchase contract disputes, accounting for 45.65%.
“Article 3 of the” Interpretation “stipulates that e-commerce platform operators have not performed real name registration and review licenses for food operators on the platform in accordance with the law, or have not complied with their obligations in accordance with the law, such as informing, ceasing to provide services on the online trading platform, and legalizing consumers. If their rights and interests are harmed, consumers have the right to claim that trading platform operators e-commerce platform and the food operators on the platform assume joint and several responsibilities, so that the e-commerce platform can ensure the food safety of consumers. ” Zheng Xuelin, Chairman of the Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court, introduced.
In practice, the operation of the e-commerce platform includes two ways of providing platform services and developing autonomous businesses. There are fundamental differences between the two modes of operation. The “Interpretation” stipulates that e-commerce platform operators have flagged as autonomous or their logos are sufficient to mislead consumers, so that consumers believe that the platform is a stand-alone product and consumers have the right to claim that the platform assumes responsibility for compensation.
“This clause adopts an appearance-oriented and consumer-friendly method of interpretation, which will also help to urge platform companies to see their best, strengthen food labeling management, and abandon dishonest and misleading behavior that maliciously attracts the attention of consumers. It’s a win-win movement. ” Liu Junhai, a professor at the University School of Law, told a reporter for the Beijing Business Daily.
On December 4, the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration issued the “Notice on the unqualified status of 11 batches of food”, which detected 5 food categories including edible agricultural products, dairy products, prepared foods, potatoes and puffed food and plant products11 The sample batch was unqualified, involving multiple e-commerce platforms such as Yihaodian.
No accident is not a reason for defense
It is worth mentioning that this “Interpretation” has fully activated the punitive damages system in the field of food safety. In accordance with the provisions of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, operators only assume punitive compensation responsibilities when they operate food that they know does not comply with food safety regulations. Therefore, the “knowing” judgment of the operator is very important, but there are difficulties for consumers to provide evidence and determine the court.
In this sense, the “Interpretation” has been further clarified by listing and adding at the end, which has improved operability. Among them, in the case of food that has passed the established shelf life but is still being sold, did not provide the legal source of purchase of the food sold, bought at an obviously unreasonable low price without reasonable reasons, or did not comply with the obligation inspection of the purchase in accordance with the law, etc. It can be considered as “knowingly”.
Do you have to pay punitive damages if you don’t eat substandard food? The “Interpretation” clarifies that punitive damages are not based on causing personal injury to consumers. This means that the food does not comply with the food safety standards, and the consumer claims that the producer or commercial operator shall bear the responsibility for punitive compensation in accordance with Article 148, paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Act, and the producer The commercial operator assumes that no personal injury has been caused to the consumer. If there is a defense, the people’s court will not support it.
“The Food Safety Act aims to ensure food safety and protect the health and safety of the public. Punitive damages are based on the consequences of personal injury, which are not conducive to the protection of consumer interests, and they are not conducive to encouraging consumers to defend their rights. ” Court judge Gao Yanzhu said.
In a typical case published by the Supreme Law, Zheng bought a box of jelly from an online store of a baby food company. Later, Zheng found a foreign body in one of the unopened jellies during the feeding process. After identification, the foreign body was found to be a spider. Zheng filed a lawsuit and asked a baby food company to refund the purchase price and pay 1,000 yuan in compensation.
The court’s decision supported Zheng’s request. A reporter for Beijing Business Daily noted that Article 148 of the Food Safety Law stipulates that, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, consumers can claim damages from producers if they produce food that does not meet food safety standards or operate foods that do not meet food safety standards. Or the trading operator asks for compensation of ten times the price or three times the loss, if the compensation increase is less than one thousand yuan, one thousand yuan.
“The function of punitive damages is not only to provide relief and compensation after the event, but also to contain and prevent in advance,” Liu Junhai said.
Cut the “black workshop”
The “Interpretation” also addresses the problem of “black workshops” in practice. Consumers claiming punitive damages for the production and sale of prepackaged foods that do not indicate the name and address of the producer must have the support of the people’s court, beginning with the source Crack down on illegal activities in production and food operation.
Zheng Xuelin said the regulation aims to break the chain of production and operation of “black workshop” food. For the production and operation of prepackaged food that does not indicate the name and address of the producer, not only will the producer take responsibility for punitive compensation, but the operator will also take responsibility for punitive compensation, so that the operator does not want or fear to operate “black workshop” food and cut “Black Workshop” food business chain.
In fact, in recent years, many e-commerce platforms have frequently discovered that problem foods are being sold during random inspections. Sun Meijun, deputy director of the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration, also previously said that the State Administration of Market Supervision has successively issued the measures for the management of food safety sampling inspections and the measures for investigation and sanction of food safety violations online, with detailed requirements for sampling and verification and handling procedures, and specifically for the Internet. The “mystery shopper” system was established for a random inspection.
Beijing Business Daily Reporter Tao Feng Wang Chenting
