In e-commerce promotions and online live broadcasts, some anchors will make promises such as "guaranteed authenticity," "guaranteed after-sales service," and "10% compensation for fakes." Do these verbal promises count? Do they have any legal effect? Once a counterfeit product is purchased, who will be responsible for the compensation from the seller, the host carrying the product, or the online platform? Let’s take a look at a typical case issued by the Supreme People’s Court.
The host of the live broadcast room promised to pay four for every fake product. Who can I ask to compensate if I buy a fake product?
Ms. Zhou spent 1,859 yuan on a bottle of facial cream at a "beauty store" opened by a trading company on the recommendation of a shopping company's live broadcast anchor. During the live broadcast, the anchor made a promise in public that he would be fully protected after selling.
According to the anchor, this cream is a genuine counter product with complete qualifications and traceability. However, after Ms. Zhou received the goods and compared them, she found that there was a problem with the goods. She commissioned a professional organization to identify the goods and confirmed that the goods were not genuine. The identification cost 500 yuan.
Afterwards, although the trading company verbally promised to compensate four times the purchase price plus the appraisal fee, it has yet to materialize. After many unsuccessful communications, Ms. Zhou filed a lawsuit in court, requiring the trading company and the live streaming shopping company to bear liability for compensation, and also advocated that the online platform bear joint and several liability for compensation.
The seller is the first responsible person and the promoter bears joint and several liability.
During live broadcasts, it is not uncommon for promoters to promise full compensation. But once consumers defend their rights, all parties often blame each other. How should the responsibilities be divided between sales merchants and live broadcast promoters?
Zhu Haifeng, President of the Second Civil Division of the People's Court of Liandu District, Lishui City: The seller is the first person responsible for product quality and breach of contract compensation. In this case, the seller of the sales contract is this trading company, and it needs to bear the corresponding legal responsibilities of the seller. As a live broadcast promoter, the shopping company makes a public commitment in the live broadcast room to pay all the compensation and provide full after-sales service. This commitment is a true expression of intention made to the outside world, does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and is legally binding. Therefore, the live broadcast promoter should bear corresponding joint and several liabilities in accordance with the law.
The judge said that Ms. Zhou placed an order to purchase facial cream through the link in the live broadcast room out of trust in the anchor's promise. This public commitment constituted a valid agreement, and the shopping company should fulfill its obligation to pay full compensation in accordance with its commitment. At the same time, the court also reviewed whether the online platform should bear responsibility.
Zhu Haifeng: The platform did not participate in this transaction, nor did it make a compensation commitment, and it has fulfilled its obligations such as merchant qualification review and information disclosure in accordance with the law. According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, consumers can only require the platform to pay compensation in advance if the platform is unable to provide consumers with true information about the merchant.
In the end, the People's Court of Liandu District, Lishui City, Zhejiang Province ruled in accordance with Article 585 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China that the trading company should compensate Ms. Zhou 7,936 yuan at four times the value of the goods. The live streaming shopping company was jointly and severally liable for the amount, and rejected Ms. Zhou's request for compensation from the platform. After the first-instance verdict, neither party filed an appeal.
According to the judge, the anchor's public promises during the live broadcast to "compensate for four for every fake" and "compensate for ten for every fake" are higher than the legal standard, but they do not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and are legally binding. Operators should fulfill the contract and honor it. The judge reminded live broadcast practitioners that oral promises in the live broadcast room are not empty marketing words, and they must bear corresponding legal responsibilities once they are released.
How to preserve key evidence in live streaming shopping rights protection
If live shopping encounters consumer disputes such as incorrect goods, false propaganda, or unfulfilled promises, how should consumers retain evidence and safeguard their rights in accordance with the law? Judges give practical guidance.
The judge said that when hearing cases involving disputes over live broadcasts, live broadcast screen playback is the core evidence for rights protection. Most of the publicity and verbal compensation promises in the live broadcast room only appear at the moment of the live broadcast. Once the live broadcast ends, the difficulty of obtaining evidence will increase significantly.
Tu Shiyu, Vice President of the People's Court of Liandu District, Lishui City: Before placing an order, consumers can ask questions to the anchor in the live broadcast room to confirm key information such as product brand, material, after-sales, and compensation commitments, and then decide to purchase after receiving a clear answer from the anchor. When recording the live broadcast, try to record the name of the host's account and the entrance to purchase products in the live broadcast room, and ensure that the video has its own recording time. Consumers can also apply to the platform to retrieve live broadcast replays, but the replays saved by the platform often lack barrage dialogue. If the self-recorded video also retains the barrage dialogue, the proof will be stronger.
In consumer rights protection cases, many consumers fail to protect their rights because the evidence chain is not complete enough and key information is not retained.
Tu Shiyu: Order screenshots, payment vouchers, and logistics information must be kept completely. The receiving process is particularly critical. Try to record a complete unboxing video for valuable goods, and film the whole process without interruption to clearly display the appearance of the package, express delivery form, actual product, and packaging label. Once you find that the product does not match the advertisement, do not throw away the outer packaging and anti-counterfeiting labels of the product. These are important physical evidence for subsequent identification and litigation. In addition, do not delete chat records of communication with platform customer service and merchants. Conversations involving product quality and compensation commitments can be used as evidence.
The judge also reminded you to try not to click on external links in the live broadcast room to jump to WeChat or private domains to place orders. For private transactions that are separated from platform supervision, it will be more difficult to provide evidence and protect rights in the future.
