Online health consultation on the Internet has the characteristics of remote, convenient, and efficient, complementing the advantages of offline health consultation, greatly facilitating the daily life needs of the people. However, at the same time, some internet platforms have illegal situations of providing online consultation under the guise of doctors, disrupting the order of internet health consultation. Recently, the Beijing Internet Court has concluded multiple cases of doctors suing a health consulting service platform for network infringement liability disputes. The court found that a health consulting service platform provided health consultation online under the name of a doctor, infringing on the plaintiff's right to reputation and name. The court ruled that a health consulting service platform apologized and compensated for mental damage and comfort money. At present, the judgments in this series of cases have come into effect. [Case Review] One of the original sources informed that he was a well-known doctor from a tertiary hospital in Beijing. He accidentally discovered that a health consulting service platform had a large number of health related answers provided in his own name, which also contained content that was clearly beyond the normal scope of medical consultation responses. However, from a medical ethics or professional perspective, the plaintiff would not provide such feedback. In addition, there are also "edge ball" Q&A related to obscene and pornographic content made in the name of the plaintiff or others on this platform. The plaintiff believes that using their own name for Q&A on such platforms would lower their social evaluation, affect patients' trust in doctors, and have seriously infringed on the plaintiff's reputation and name rights. The defendant argued that the platform in question was a platform that provided free online services to users such as the public, hospitals, and doctors. The plaintiff's information and Q&A content published on the platform were obtained from the internet, belonging to the reasonable use of public resources and also for public welfare purposes. There was no subjective intent to infringe on the plaintiff's right to reputation or name. The defendant did not engage in insults, defamation or other actions that damaged the plaintiff's reputation, did not distort or derogate from the plaintiff's information, and the plaintiff's reputation and name were not damaged. In addition, the platform involved in the case issued a disclaimer stating that "some text and images on the website are sourced from the internet. If suspected of infringement, please contact and delete them", which has fulfilled reasonable care obligations. After trial, the court held that the right to personality, as a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens, is the right of civil subjects to lawfully control their personal interests and exclude infringement by others, with the aim of maintaining and realizing personal dignity and freedom. The law has strict scope and conditions for the reasonable use of personality rights and their interests. The defendant's use of the plaintiff's name, portrait, unit name, professional title and other information in a commercial operation manner and purpose is not based on public interest in news reporting, public opinion supervision, etc., which deviates from the original intention of fair use and does not constitute a fair use behavior. The platform involved in the case, without the authorization or consent of the plaintiff, used the plaintiff's name, photo, and professional title to post consultation response content on the website, which is easily mistaken by the unspecified public for the plaintiff providing consultation services on the website. In the health consultation services, there is clearly content beyond the scope of the plaintiff's expertise and recommending specific drugs, as well as obscene and pornographic "edge ball" Q&A, It is easy for the public to question the plaintiff's professional standards and ethics, resulting in negative impacts on the plaintiff's moral character, reputation, etc., and should be deemed as a infringement of reputation rights. In addition, the defendant's health