[6] Reappearance of professional counterfeit fighters: How to judge buying fakes knowingly?
Compiled from: Shandong High Court, Heze Intermediate Court
Case review
On July 11, 2022, Su purchased one box of the weight-loss food product "Taiwan Strong Milk" from Wang via WeChat and paid 380 yuan through WeChat transfer. Wang mailed the product to Su as requested. On August 9 of the same year, Su intended to buy five boxes of Taiwan Strong Milk and transferred 1,800 yuan via WeChat. The next day, Su changed the order to two boxes of the weight-loss food product "Xianfei Yanqing SO Plant Peptide Pressed Candy," and Wang refunded 1,204 yuan to Su via WeChat and mailed the product.
[1] Image source from the internet; if infringement occurs, please delete!
On August 30 of the same year, Su purchased four boxes of the weight-loss food product "Xianfei Yanqing SO Plant Peptide Pressed Candy" from Wang via WeChat and paid 1,150 yuan through WeChat transfer. The outer packaging of the Taiwan Strong Milk had English labels without Chinese markings for production date, manufacturer name and address, shelf life, or importer information. Each box contained small bags labeled with the words "Taiwan Strong Milk." The packaging of the Xianfei Yanqing SO Plant Peptide Pressed Candy had Chinese labels with production date, manufacturer name and address, and shelf life, with the front of the box marked "Xianfei Yanqing SO Plant Peptide Pressed Candy." Each box contained small bags labeled with the words "Plant Peptide Pressed Candy."
On September 7, 2022, Wang refunded the purchase amount to Su, but Su insisted on a tenfold compensation. Investigation revealed that Su had filed lawsuits across the country and was not a normal consumer.
[1] Court Opinion
In this case, Su had seen the products in Wang's WeChat Moments and consulted Wang via WeChat, which sufficiently indicated that Su was aware of the products and would not be misled by the food labels. Furthermore, Su claimed to have purchased the products for personal consumption, but upon receiving the package, Su immediately filmed the unboxing process to preserve evidence. This behavior deviated from normal conduct and suggested that Su's purchase was not for consumption but for potential profit through litigation, violating the principle of good faith in civil law and the socialist core values of honesty and friendliness promoted by the state.
In this case, Su invoked Article 148, Paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, seeking tenfold punitive damages and bore the corresponding burden of proof. The evidence provided by Su only demonstrated that the purchased products lacked Chinese labels and required information such as production date, manufacturer name and address, shelf life, and importer details. To prove that the products were "toxic, harmful, or substandard," Su applied for an appraisal of whether the two weight-loss products contained sibutramine but failed to pay the appraisal fee within the specified period. The court lawfully terminated the appraisal process, and Su bore the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence. Therefore, the claim for tenfold compensation lacked basis and was not supported by the first-instance court. Su appealed, but the Heze Intermediate People's Court, after trial, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[1] "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests"
Article 2
Consumers who purchase, use, or receive services for daily consumption are protected by this law; matters not covered by this law are governed by other relevant laws and regulations.
[1] Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 148
If food is produced that does not meet food safety standards, or if an operator knowingly sells food that does not meet food safety standards, consumers may, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, demand from the producer or operator a payment of ten times the price or three times the loss; if the additional compensation is less than 1,000 yuan, it shall be 1,000 yuan. However, this does not apply to defects in food labels or instructions that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers.
[1] The author's perspective
Although the emergence of professional counterfeit fighters has served as a warning to social operators and enhanced consumers' awareness of rights protection, as the number of cases involving buying fake goods knowingly gradually increases, these professional counterfeit fighters seem not to be upholding justice but rather using punitive damages for personal gain, or even extorting merchants. Such behavior not only fails to have a positive impact on society but also severely violates the principle of good faith, disrupts the market economy, and wastes judicial resources. Therefore, in recent years, many judicial precedents have ceased to support such actions.
