[ad_1]
Original Title: Supreme Law: E-Commerce Platforms Have Problems With Online Food Purchase Source: China Youth Daily
This morning, the Supreme Law issued the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on various issues related to the application of laws in the trial of cases of civil disputes on food safety (1)” (hereinafter, the “Interpretation”), clearly stipulates that e-commerce platforms must take responsibility and ensure food safety online “Black Workshop” food producers and operators must take responsibility for punitive compensation.
According to Zheng Xuelin, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court and President of the First Division of the People’s Republic of China, regarding the responsibility of electronic commerce platforms, Article 2 (1) of the “Interpretation” stipulates that their operators mark food sold as a stand-alone business, or even if they have not If the self-operated food is marked as self-operated but the food sold by the actual autonomous business does not meet food safety standards, the consumer has the right to claim that the operator of the e-commerce platform will assume responsibility for compensation as a food operator.
In addition, Article 3 of the “Interpretation” stipulates that e-commerce platform operators have not performed real name registration and review of food operators’ licenses on the platform in accordance with the law, or have not fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the law, such as informing and suspending the provision of online trading platform services. If legitimate rights and interests are harmed, consumers have the right to claim that platform operators and platform food operators are in solidarity.
If consumers buy substandard food and don’t eat the wrong thing, should the operator bear punitive damages? Under the “Interpretation”, punitive damages are not based on causing personal injury. If the food does not comply with the food safety standards, the consumer can claim that the producer or commercial operator must bear punitive damages in accordance with article 148, paragraph 2, of the Food Safety Law; the producer or commercial operator will assume that “no personal harm has been caused to the consumer.” If there is a defense, the people’s court will not support it.
The “Interpretation” stipulates that all foods must be clearly marked with the date of production and shelf life. If the consumer alleges that the producer or commercial operator must bear punitive damages in accordance with the provisions of article 148, paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Law, the people’s court will support him.
“Black dens, black workshops, and black markets” often form a comprehensive process of production, supply, and marketing. Producers must depend on suitable conditions such as site, equipment, technology, raw materials, sales channels, transportation and storage to produce and sell toxic and harmful food. “Liu Min, Deputy Chief of the Supreme Court of The People’s Republic of China, presented that to cut the chain of production and operation of food from the “black workshop”, Article 5 of the “Interpretation” clarifies that for units or individuals who deliberately engage in illegal production and operation and still provide convenient conditions, consumers The right to claim that the unit or individual and the food producer and the business operator assume joint liability in accordance with article 123 of the Food Safety Law.
The “Interpretation” punishes malicious and seriously irresponsible business operators in accordance with the law. Article 6 further clarifies the five types of punitive damages liabilities for food business operators who know that food is not food safe and is still sold in the form of “list + cover the bottom” circumstances, including: foods that have passed the established shelf life but are still being sold; they do not provide the legal source of purchase of the food sold; Obviously unreasonable purchases at low prices without reasonable reasons and do not comply with the inspection obligations in accordance with the law; false Mark or change food production date and batch number; illegally transfer, conceal or destroy food purchase and sale records or knowingly provide false information.
Who is responsible for problems with food provided to passengers on trains and airplanes? The “Interpretation” clarifies that, in this case, passengers have the right to claim that the carrier assumes responsibility for compensation as a producer or operator of food; And clearly, whether it is provided free or paid, the carrier must ensure the safety of the food provided. You are not allowed to use “food is provided free of charge” as a defense.
