Supreme judicial interpretation of laws online impairment trading platform or responsible: | | line | judicial interpretations of Supreme Law _ news

Efforts to increase the protection of consumer interests, unified food and drug cases involving disputes over the administration of Justice, 9th release of the Supreme People's Court concerning the trial of cases of dispute over the food and drug regulations on several issues of applicable law.

Judicial interpretation of gifts do not qualify can claim, what responsibility celebrity endorsements of false advertising, buy loss online Internet trading platform how accountability, how to identify the "overbearing clause", and many other matters that are clearly defined in judicial practice.

For network trading platform provides who, and false food drug advertising spokesmen and marketing who of legal responsibility, Justice explained provides, consumers through network trading platform purchased food drug suffered damage, network trading platform provides who cannot provides food, and drug of production or sellers of situation Xia, court support consumers requires network trading platform provides who bear responsibility of demands, and consumers due to false advertising recommended of food drug exists quality problem suffered damage, Established pursuant to the consumer protection law and other related requests for advertising agents and publishers shall bear joint and several liability, the Court supported.

The Supreme People's Court spokesman Sun Jungong said, "food and drug producers and sellers to form contract, notices, statements, notices and other way to exclude or limit consumer rights, alleviate or exempt from the dealer to the consumer provisions of the unfair and unreasonable, consumers could rely on relevant provisions of the consumer protection law, request the people's Court found that ' the provisions of the King ' is not valid. ”

False certification to curb food certification bodies, judicial interpretation stipulates that "intentionally providing false food certification bodies certification, cause consumer harm, consumers requesting their joint and several liability, the people's Court should be supported. Food certification issue false certification agency as a result of negligence, cause consumer harm, consumers request to undertakes the corresponding responsibilities, the people's Court should be supported. ”

Online trading disputes, the provisions of article 9th, consumers suffer damage through online business platform for food, drugs, Internet trading platform provider must be responsible for.

For due to false advertising against consumers acts of, provides under pointed out that, in joint responsibility in the, consumers both can together sued food, and drug of producer, and manufacturers, and advertising operators, and advertising publishing who, and advertising spokesmen, requests its common bear compensation responsibility, also can sued which a or several as accused, by its bear all compensation responsibility, then again to other responsibility main exercise recovery right.

In addition, the judicial interpretation also clearly "know buying fake" behavior does not affect the claims of consumers ' rights. Which provides that disputes the problems of food and drug quality, buyers claim to the producers, sellers, producers and sellers to buyers knowing that quality problems continued to purchase food, medicines to defend the Court do not support.

The above judicial interpretation will be effective as of March 15, 2014.

(Edit: SN091)
January 10, 2014 Economic information daily
(
最高法出台司法解释 网购受损交易平台或担责|最高法|网购|司法解释_新闻资讯

　　为加大保护消费者权益力度，统一食品药品纠纷案件的司法裁判尺度，最高人民法院9日下午对外发布《关于审理食品药品纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》。

司法解释对如赠品不合格能否索赔，明星代言虚假广告承担何种责任，网购遭受损失网络交易平台如何担责，如何认定“霸王条款”等诸多司法审判实践中的问题进行了明确规定。

　　对于网络交易平台提供者、虚假食品药品广告代言人和推销者的法律责任，司法解释规定，消费者通过网络交易平台购买食品药品遭受损害，网络交易平台提供者不能提供食品、药品的生产或销售者的情况下，法院支持消费者要求网络交易平台提供者承担责任的诉求，而消费者因虚假广告推荐的食品药品存在质量问题遭受损害，依据消费者权益保护法等相关规定请求广告经营者、发布者承担连带责任的，法院予以支持。

　　最高人民法院新闻发言人孙军工指出：“食品药品的生产者、销售者以格式合同、通知、声明、告示等方式作出排除或者限制消费者权利，减轻或者免除经营者责任等对消费者不公平、不合理的规定，消费者可以依据消费者权益保护法的相关规定，请求人民法院认定‘霸王条款’内容无效。”

　　为遏制食品认证机构进行虚假认证，司法解释规定“食品认证机构故意出具虚假认证，造成消费者损害，消费者请求其承担连带责任的，人民法院应予支持。食品认证机构因过失出具不实认证，造成消费者损害，消费者请求其承担相应责任的，人民法院应予支持。”

　　对于网络交易纠纷，《规定》第9条规定，消费者通过网络交易平台购买食品、药品遭受损害，网络交易平台提供者必须负责。

　　对于因虚假广告侵害消费者行为的，《规定》指出，在连带责任中，消费者既可以一并起诉食品、药品的生产商、销售商、广告经营者、广告发布者、广告代言人，请求其共同承担赔偿责任，也可以起诉其中一个或者几个作为被告，由其承担全部赔偿责任，然后再向其他责任主体行使追偿权。

　　另外，司法解释还明确了“知假买假”行为不影响主张消费者权利。其中规定，因食品、药品质量问题发生纠纷，购买者向生产者、销售者主张权利，生产者、销售者以购买者明知食品、药品存在质量问题而仍然购买为由进行抗辩的，人民法院不予支持。

　　上述司法解释将于2014年3月15日起施行。

（编辑：SN091）
2014年01月10日01:42
经济参考报
)