Expose him! "Professional counterfeit-fighting" fraud or rights protection? Taobao sellers beware of these tactics.
Food is the paramount necessity of the people, and food safety is closely related to people's lives. With the continuous improvement of China's legal system, the state has introduced numerous food safety laws in recent years to protect consumers' rights. In 2015, the newly revised "Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China" was promulgated and implemented, with Article 96, Paragraph 2 stipulating: "If a producer produces food that does not meet food safety standards, or a seller knowingly sells food that does not meet food safety standards, consumers may, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, demand from the producer or seller a payment of ten times the price of the food as punitive damages." The original intent of this legislation is to maximize the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of ordinary consumers and to urge food producers and sellers to strictly fulfill their food safety obligations. However, it has also provided opportunities for those with ulterior motives.
In September 2018, the owner of a Taobao dropshipping store was introduced to lawyer Zhao Min of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm through a friend, stating that a certain imported health product they sold had been maliciously purchased, and the buyer had immediately filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Internet Court. The plaintiff in the lawsuit claimed that the health product had not undergone health product registration in China and lacked mandatory labeling requirements under national laws, such as Chinese-language labels, and demanded the application of the tenfold compensation provision under the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. Upon first contact with the client, Lawyer Zhao provided relevant legal education, explaining that before the law was fully established, the court would not consider whether the plaintiff was a malicious purchaser in such lawsuits. However, after fully understanding the litigation risks, the client still trusted Lawyer Zhao and signed a representation agreement.
After taking on this case, Attorney Zhao discovered through public channels that the plaintiff, though only in his early 20s, had filed multiple similar lawsuits in various courts within a short period. This clearly identified him as a so-called "professional litigant." Further communication with the court revealed that the plaintiff had no intention of settling. In the subsequent work, Attorney Zhao learned that due to the existence of the Food Safety Law in recent years, the outcomes of many similar cases have been highly unfavorable to defendants. However, during interactions with the client and a review of the plaintiff's litigation materials, Attorney Zhao identified aA very important entry point in the litigation process: the plaintiff completed the return and refund of most of the products immediately after purchasing the defendant's products. From a legal standpoint, it is at least considered that the sales contract for this portion has been terminated.
During the first-instance trial, although Attorney Zhao argued vigorously and presented his client's position, and the plaintiff did not deny their identity as a frequent participant in such lawsuits, the judge accepted the defense argument that some sales contracts had been terminated and that the rights and obligations of both parties regarding those contracts had ended, thanks to Attorney Zhao's efforts. As a result, the first-instance judgment upheld the legitimate rights and interests of our client.
As expected, the plaintiff filed an appeal after the first-instance judgment. However, thanks to Attorney Zhao's exceptional legal expertise and thorough pre-trial preparations, the plaintiff ultimately backed down and voluntarily withdrew the appeal after the second-instance court hearing. Attorney Zhao's efforts were highly praised by the client. Substantive justice was also upheld through Attorney Zhao's diligent work.
