In recent years, with the vigorous development of China's digital economy, online consumption has become the basic consumption mode of the public. Statistics show that since 2013, China has become the world's largest online retail market for many consecutive years. In the cases of online consumption disputes, some new situations and problems appear frequently. For example, does the standard terms that consumers often see "the operator has the right of unilateral interpretation or final interpretation" have legal effect? Can you still enjoy the "return without reason in seven days" for unpacked online shopping goods? Who should consumers claim compensation for disputes over live broadcast delivery? In response to these problems, the Supreme People's court recently issued the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of online consumption dispute cases (hereinafter referred to as judicial interpretation), which mainly stipulates the rights and obligations of online consumption contracts, the identification of responsible subjects, the civil liability of live broadcast marketing, and the civil liability of takeout catering, The judicial interpretation was officially implemented on March 15 to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers under the background of digital economy and promote the healthy and sustainable development of network economy. The goods are deemed to be qualified upon receipt? Such unfair and unreasonable standard terms are invalid In reality, when consumers sign for goods, they generally don't open them for detailed inspection, and they don't have time to try them out. However, some standard terms of online consumption contracts unilaterally stipulate that consumers are not allowed to raise quality problems after signing for goods. How to determine the effectiveness of such standard terms? Zheng Xuelin, President of the first court of the Supreme People's court, said: "this kind of standard terms is obviously unfair and unreasonable. The judicial interpretation clearly stipulates that the standard terms related to 'the receipt of goods by the consignee is deemed to recognize that the quality of goods meets the agreement' are invalid." In fact, "the consignee's receipt of the goods is deemed to recognize that the quality of the goods meets the agreement" is only one of the situations in which some e-commerce operators use their advantageous position to formulate unfair and unreasonable standard terms to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. "In addition to enumerating the unfair and unreasonable standard terms commonly seen in practice, such as' the consignee's receipt of the goods is deemed to recognize that the quality of the goods complies with the agreement ', the judicial interpretation also makes clear what standard terms should be deemed invalid according to law." Zheng Xuelin said. The judicial interpretation also makes it clear that if the standard terms provided by e-commerce operators contain the following contents, the people's court shall determine them invalid according to law: all the responsibilities of e-commerce platform operators according to law shall be borne by the operators in the platform; E-commerce operators have the right of unilateral interpretation or final interpretation; Exclude or restrict the rights of consumers to complain, report, request mediation, apply for arbitration and file a lawsuit according to law; Other contents that are unfair and unreasonable to consumers, such as excluding or restricting consumers' rights, reducing or exempting e-commerce operators from their responsibilities, and increasing consumers' responsibilities. With the rapid development of online consumer market, there are also some unhealthy and non-standard problems. For example, the "black and gray products" such as applications and operation teams that specifically brush orders, reviews and traffic have emerged. They are suspected of deliberately making false records, infringing on consumers' right to know and choice, and disturbing the market order. In this regard, the judicial interpretation makes it clear that the contracts signed by e-commerce operators and others for false publicity by means of fictitious transactions, fictitious clicks and fabricated user evaluation shall be deemed invalid by the people's court according to law and guide the market subjects to standardize their operation. Can't you return the goods after unpacking? After inspection, the consumer can return the goods without affecting the integrity of the goods When consumers consume offline, they can have an on-site experience, which is difficult for online consumption. To this end, the consumer protection law has set up a seven day no reason return system. However, in practice, when consumers want to return or claim for goods purchased online, some businesses often refuse and shirk under various excuses, which has also become a pain point and persistent disease in online shopping. In this regard, the judicial interpretation has made a combined fist to regulate the problems such as the difficulty of online shopping return and claim. The judicial interpretation makes it clear that consumers need to unpack and inspect goods for inspection, and operators shall not refuse consumers to exercise the right to return goods without reason on the ground that the goods have been unpacked. Of course, when consumers unpack and inspect, they should also ensure that the integrity of the goods is not affected. In addition, when shopping online, consumers often give some gifts and prizes. Some goods are exchanged by consumers with coupons or points, or at a lower price. What should be done if there are quality problems with gifts and prizes? "The judicial interpretation makes it clear that if prizes, gifts or exchanged commodities cause damage to consumers, e-commerce operators shall also be liable for compensation, and shall not claim exemption on the grounds that the prizes and gifts are provided free of charge or the commodities are exchanged." Liu Min, vice president of the first court of the Supreme People's court, said. Merchants' promises like "false one pays ten" are often seen by consumers when shopping online. These promises often have an impact on consumers' consumption decisions. After receiving the goods, what should consumers do if they find that there are fake and shoddy goods and other situations that damage the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and the merchants refuse to fulfill their commitments? Liu Min said: "in this regard, the judicial interpretation is clear. If consumers advocate that operators in the platform compensate according to their commitments, the people's court should support them according to law and earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers." Live shopping meets false publicity? Operators in the platform shall be liable for compensation In recent years, the webcast e-commerce industry has developed rapidly. How to guide the healthy development of new business forms and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers has become a new topic in judicial practice. For webcast marketing, the judicial interpretation uses four articles to stipulate the responsibility of the webcast marketing platform. "These four articles cover the self-supporting liability of the live broadcast marketing platform, the advance liability when the operator of the live broadcast room is unable to provide true information, the joint liability for failing to fulfill the obligation of food business qualification examination, and the joint liability when he knows or should know the illegal act." Zheng Xuelin said that the judicial interpretation makes it clear that if the staff of the operators in the platform cause damage to consumers due to false publicity in the webcast, consumers have the right to claim that the operators in the platform bear the liability for compensation. In addition to the case of brand self broadcasting, in practice, it is more common for subjects other than businesses to set up live broadcasting rooms, which are specialized in live broadcasting marketing business. Consumers often don't know who the actual sellers are. In response to this problem, the judicial interpretation makes it clear that the operator of the live studio should be able to prove that it has indicated that it is not a seller and the actual seller, and it should be sufficient to enable consumers to distinguish. Otherwise, consumers have the right to claim that the operator of the live broadcasting room shall bear the responsibility of the commodity seller. If the operator of the live broadcasting room has fulfilled the obligation of marking, it is not that he does not assume the responsibility of the seller. According to the judicial interpretation, the court shall determine the legal relationship and responsibility by integrating the facts such as the appearance of the transaction, the agreement between the operator and the operator of the live studio, the cooperation mode with the operator, the transaction process and the subjective cognition of consumers. "There are various types of live broadcasting, and they are constantly developing. There is no 'one size fits all' provision in the judicial interpretation. While safeguarding consumers' right to know and choice, the judicial interpretation leaves room for case discretion and future development through more flexible provisions, and guides practitioners of new formats to standardize their operation." Liu Min said. (Xinhua News Agency)