Selling fake sympathy and goods in live streams, fraudulent behavior results in refund and triple compensation.
Compiled from: Nanjing Intermediate Court, Jiangsu High Court
"'Lingling' is seriously ill and needs to sell jade for treatment"...
In the livestream, "Lingling's" tragic story moved netizens to pity. Out of sympathy, netizen Wan ordered jade items in the livestream to show kindness to "Lingling." Unexpectedly, "Lingling's" story was fabricated by the blogger to attract traffic. Recently, the Nanjing Intermediate Court made a final judgment on this information network sales contract dispute triggered by the livestream "selling misery," ordering the short video blogger to publicly apologize and pay triple compensation.
Case review
In July 2021, short video platform blogger Jiao, under the username "Yibo 'Forging Ahead,'" livestreamed claiming that the girl "Lingling" and her biological mother were being restricted by stepmother "Damei" and requested rescue. Jiao later livestreamed multiple times the process of bringing people to rescue "Lingling" and her mother. After "Lingling" was rescued, she was found to be seriously ill. To raise money for "Lingling's" medical treatment, through Jiao's mediation, stepmother "Damei" agreed to entrust Jiao to sell jade, with the proceeds used to pay for "Lingling's" medical expenses. Jiao stated in the livestream that he would not accept donations from fans and urged fans to purchase jade products to show kindness to "Lingling."
Coincidentally, Wan later saw a video forwarded by someone else, in which "Lingling" and "Damei" from the livestream room were having a "celebration dinner" together.
It was only then that Wan realized he had been deceived, and he immediately reported and complained to a short video platform, which then disabled the account's merchant functions.
Afterward, feeling cheated, Wan sued Jiao and the short video platform company in Gulou District Court, demanding an apology statement, a refund of the purchase price, and triple damages.
Jiao argued that the goods Wan purchased in his livestream room matched the quality with the price paid, and there was no consumer fraud in the sales process. The performance of "Lingling" or other storylines in the livestream was meant to liven up the atmosphere and had no direct connection to the sales contract.
[1] Court Opinion
In this case, Jiao performed the storyline of rescuing and treating "Lingling" in the livestream to emotionally set the stage for selling jade, and explicitly stated that the sale of jade was for the charitable purpose of treating "Lingling." Upon investigation, characters like "Lingling" and "Damei" and the storyline were all fabricated, and the "charitable purpose" of selling jade never existed from the start. However, Jiao never reasonably informed the audience during the livestream, so he deliberately fabricated a pitiful storyline, using a false charitable purpose to conceal the profit-making nature of selling jade, demonstrating subjective intent to defraud and engaging in fraudulent marketing. Wan, due to Jiao's sales conduct, formed a mistaken understanding and judgment about the purpose of Jiao's jade sales, and the intention to purchase jade based on this was inconsistent with his true intent. Therefore, Jiao's sales conduct constituted fraud, and Wan's claim for a refund and triple damages had factual and legal basis.
Ultimately, the court ruled: Jiao must publish an apology statement to Wan on the short video platform (content subject to court review); if Jiao fails to comply, the full text of this judgment will be published in the Jiangsu Legal Daily; Jiao and a certain cultural media company, upon receiving the returned goods from Wan, must jointly refund Wan the purchase price of 5,649.9 yuan and pay triple damages of 16,949.7 yuan.
After the first-instance verdict, the defendant Jiao and a certain cultural media company appealed, but the Nanjing Intermediate Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 21
Intentionally providing false information, or intentionally concealing the truth by a person with a duty to inform, causing the other party to express an intention based on a mistaken understanding, may be deemed as fraud.
[1] The author's perspective
Good faith is a fundamental principle of the Civil Code and an important element of socialist core values. Live-stream shopping is a new type of transaction in the internet era. Operators and streamers in live-stream rooms should conduct business with integrity and adhere to the bottom line of law and morality when selling goods through live streams. Jiao, as an operator and streamer, engaged in fraudulent marketing by playing on sympathy, which not only infringed on consumers' right to know and disrupted fair market competition, but also violated the basic principle of good faith and the requirements of socialist core values. Such behavior should receive a negative legal evaluation. It is hoped that through the judgment in this case, live-stream room operators, streamers, and live-stream platforms will consciously restrain their behavior with legal and ethical standards of integrity, allowing consumers to shop with confidence and rationality on live-stream platforms, thereby fostering a healthy and orderly online consumption environment.
