签收即为商品合格？网络消费纠纷司法解释实施

Signing for goods is qualified? Implementation of Judicial Interpretation of Network Consumer Disputes

核心阅读

Core reading

伴随网络经济的快速发展，网络消费纠纷案件呈现出快速增长的特点，司法实践中出现了一些新情况、新问题。为保护消费者合法权益，《最高人民法院关于审理网络消费纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定（一）》开始实施，进一步明确各方责任、规范案件审理，推动行业健康发展。

With the rapid development of the network economy, online consumption dispute cases have shown the characteristics of rapid growth, and some new situations and problems have emerged in judicial practice. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Online Consumption Disputes (I) has been implemented to further clarify the responsibilities of all parties, standardize the trial of cases, and promote the healthy development of the industry.

近年来，随着我国数字经济的蓬勃发展，网络消费已经成为社会大众的基本消费方式。统计数据显示，自2013年起，我国已连续多年成为全球最大的网络零售市场。

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.

在网络消费纠纷案件中，一些新情况、新问题频繁出现。例如，消费者经常看到的格式条款“经营者享有单方解释权或者最终解释权”有法律效力吗？已拆封的网购商品，是否还能享受“七日无理由退货”？直播带货发生纠纷，消费者该向谁提出赔偿要求？

In the case of online consumption disputes, some new situations and problems appear frequently. For example, does the format clause "operator has the right of unilateral interpretation or final interpretation" that consumers often see have legal effect? Can unsealed online goods still enjoy "seven-day return without reason"? Who should consumers claim compensation for a dispute over live streaming?

针对这些问题，最高人民法院日前出台《最高人民法院关于审理网络消费纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定（一）》（以下简称司法解释），主要对网络消费合同权利义务、责任主体认定、直播营销民事责任、外卖餐饮民事责任等方面作出规定，依法保护数字经济背景下消费者合法权益，促进网络经济健康持续发展，该司法解释已于3月15日正式实施。

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.

签收即视为商品合格？

The goods are deemed to be qualified upon receipt?

这类不公平不合理的格式条款无效

Such unfair and unreasonable standard terms are invalid

现实中，消费者签收商品时一般不会拆开详细查看，更没有时间试用。但有些网络消费合同格式条款单方规定，消费者签收商品后，就不得提出质量问题，这种格式条款效力如何认定？最高法民一庭庭长郑学林表示：“这种格式条款显然是不公平不合理的，司法解释明确规定，有关‘收货人签收商品即视为认可商品质量符合约定’的格式条款无效。”

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."

事实上，“收货人签收商品即视为认可商品质量符合约定”只是一些电子商务经营者利用优势地位，制定不公平不合理的格式条款侵害消费者合法权益的情形之一。“司法解释除了对‘收货人签收商品即视为认可商品质量符合约定’等实践中常见的不公平不合理的格式条款进行了列举外，还作了兜底性规定，明确了哪些格式条款应当依法认定为无效。”郑学林说。

In fact, "the consignee signs for the goods and is deemed to recognize that the quality of the goods conforms to the agreement" is just one of the situations in which some e-commerce operators take advantage of their dominant position and formulate unfair and unreasonable format terms to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. In addition to enumeration of the common unfair and unreasonable format clauses in the practice of "the consignee's signing of the goods is deemed to be recognized as the quality of the goods in accordance with the agreement', the judicial interpretation also makes bottom-up provisions, clarifying which format clauses should be deemed invalid according to law. Zheng Xuelin said.

司法解释还明确，电子商务经营者提供的格式条款有以下内容的，人民法院应当依法认定无效：电子商务平台经营者依法应承担的责任一概由平台内经营者承担；电子商务经营者享有单方解释权或者最终解释权；排除或者限制消费者依法投诉、举报、请求调解、申请仲裁、提起诉讼的权利；其他排除或者限制消费者权利、减轻或者免除电子商务经营者责任、加重消费者责任等对消费者不公平、不合理的内容。

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.

网络消费市场快速发展的同时，也出现了一些不健康、不规范问题。比如，专门刷单、刷评、刷流量的应用程序、运营团队等“黑灰产”已经出现，其涉嫌故意制造虚假记录，侵害消费者知情权和选择权，扰乱市场秩序。对此，司法解释明确电子商务经营者与他人签订的以虚构交易、虚构点击量、编造用户评价等方式进行虚假宣传的合同，人民法院应当依法认定无效，引导市场主体规范经营。

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.

拆封就不能退货？

Can't you return the goods after unpacking?

消费者查验后，不影响商品完好即可退货

After inspection, the consumer can return the goods without affecting the integrity of the goods

消费者在线下消费时，可以进行现场体验，而网络消费难以做到这一点。为此，消费者权益保护法设置了七日无理由退货制度。然而，实践中，消费者想对网购商品进行退货或索赔时，一些商家往往以各种借口拒绝、推脱，这也成为网购中的痛点和顽疾。对此，司法解释打出了组合拳，对于网购退货难、索赔难等问题进行规制。

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.

司法解释明确，消费者因检查商品的必要进行拆封查验，经营者不得以商品已拆封为由拒绝消费者行使无理由退货权。当然，消费者拆封查验的时候也要保证不影响商品完好。此外，消费者在网上购物时，经常会附赠一些赠品、奖品，有些商品是消费者用优惠券或者积分换购，或者以较低价格换购。如果赠品、奖品存在质量问题应怎么处理？

The judicial interpretation makes it clear that if a consumer unpacks and inspects the goods due to the necessity of inspection, the operator shall not refuse the consumer to exercise the right of return without reason on the grounds that the goods have been opened. Of course, when consumers unpack and inspect, they should also ensure that it does not affect the integrity of the goods. In addition, when consumers shop online, they often get some gifts and prizes. Some products are exchanged with coupons or points, or exchanged at a lower price. What should I do if there is a quality problem with the gifts and prizes?

“司法解释明确，奖品、赠品、换购商品给消费者造成损害，电子商务经营者也应当承担赔偿责任，不得以奖品、赠品属于免费提供或者商品属于换购为理由主张免责。”最高法民一庭副庭长刘敏说。

"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.

类似于“假一赔十”这样的商家承诺，消费者在网络购物时经常见到，这些承诺对于消费者的消费决策往往产生影响。消费者收到商品后，如发现存在假冒伪劣等损害消费者合法权益的情形，商家又拒绝履行承诺，应该怎么办？刘敏说：“对此，司法解释明确，消费者主张平台内经营者按照承诺赔偿的，人民法院应依法予以支持，切实维护消费者合法权益。”

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 claim that the operators in the platform should compensate according to their commitments, the people's court should support it according to law and earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers."

直播购物遇虚假宣传？

Live shopping meets false publicity?

平台内经营者应承担赔偿责任

Operators in the platform shall be liable for compensation

近年来，网络直播电商行业快速发展。如何引导新业态健康发展，保护好消费者合法权益，成为司法实践面临的新课题。针对网络直播营销，司法解释用了4个条款对直播营销平台责任作出规定。

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.

“这4个条款涵盖了直播营销平台自营责任、无法提供直播间运营者真实信息时的先付责任、未尽食品经营资质审核义务的连带责任以及明知或者应知不法行为情况下的连带责任。”郑学林表示，司法解释明确，如果因平台内经营者的工作人员在网络直播中虚假宣传等给消费者造成损害，消费者有权主张平台内经营者承担赔偿责任。

"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.

除品牌自播情形以外，实践中更为常见的是商家以外的主体开设直播间，专门从事直播营销业务，消费者往往不清楚实际销售者是谁。针对这一问题，司法解释明确，直播间运营者要能够证明已经标明了其并非销售者并标明实际销售者，并且要达到足以使消费者辨别的程度。否则，消费者有权主张直播间运营者承担商品销售者责任。

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.

直播间运营者已经尽到标明义务的，也并非一概不承担销售者责任。根据司法解释，法院应当综合交易外观、直播间运营者与经营者的约定、与经营者的合作模式、交易过程以及消费者主观认知等事实认定法律关系和责任承担。

If the operator of the live broadcast room has fulfilled its stated obligations, it does not mean that it does not assume the responsibility of the seller. According to the judicial interpretation, the court shall determine the legal relationship and responsibility based on the facts such as the appearance of the transaction, the agreement between the operator and the operator of the live broadcast room, the cooperation mode with the operator, the transaction process and the subjective cognition of consumers.

“直播样态多样，并且不断发展，司法解释没有作‘一刀切’的规定。在维护消费者知情权和选择权的同时，司法解释通过较为弹性的规定，为个案裁量和未来发展留出空间，引导新业态从业者规范经营。”刘敏说。

"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.

《 人民日报 》（ 2022年03月16日 13 版）

People's daily (edition 13, March 16, 2022)