Analyzing Three Typical E-commerce Cases

Case 1: Platform Governance and Platform Liability

Wu Mou and Guangzhou E-commerce Company Limited, Network Service Contract Dispute - Platform's Format Clause on Stopping Service for Abusive Users is Valid

Basic Case

The Defendant Company is the operator of an online shopping platform, and Wu Mou is its member, enjoying rights such as "free returns". The defendant company is the operator of an online shopping platform, and Wu is a member of the platform and enjoys the right of "free return".

Wu purchased goods on the defendant's website, but was dissatisfied with the "split delivery of orders and the payment of courier fees", refused to accept the goods, and applied for a refund. His behavior of purchasing, refusing to accept, and returning large quantities of goods resulted in the Defendant refunding Wu's membership service fee and freezing his account in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Terms of Service.

Wu sued, claiming that the Defendant's platform had engaged in consumer fraud and false propaganda, and that it had violated his legitimate rights and interests by restricting his use of his account without a valid reason, and that he should be held liable for breach of contract.

Results

Guangzhou Internet Court ruled: reject all the plaintiff Wu's claims.

Gist of the decision

Core point: whether the e-commerce company's measure of freezing the user's account based on the platform's terms of service was justified.

The court held that the defendant company, as an online shopping platform, should provide services in accordance with the law and its contract, and that the Terms of Service of its platform, although a format clause, was a valid clause.

The e-commerce platform is not improper to exercise the management rights according to the contract and maintain the reasonable transaction order of the platform. At the same time, the user should comply with the contractual agreements and legal provisions, and should not abuse their rights.

Wu enjoys the right to return goods according to the law, but the unreasonable high return rate shows that it fails to do its minimum duty of care when shopping, and is too casual when exercising the right to return goods, the practice unreasonably increases the cost of enterprises and society, contrary to the principle of honesty and credit, is the abuse of their own rights, the defendant company based on the platform terms of service to freeze the plaintiff's user account measures have the Justification.

Case Commentary

01 Abuse of Consumers' Right of Return

Given that online shopping is characterized by online non-physicality, the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law stipulates a seven-day no-excuses return system, which is designed to protect the consumers who are in a disadvantaged position in the transaction. While this system ensures the safety of consumers' shopping, the phenomenon of consumers abusing the return rule to return goods in bad faith also occurs from time to time, resulting in the interests of sellers and e-commerce platform operators being jeopardized.

To address the above issues, the court established the following rules: "seven days no reason to return the system" gives consumers the right to return goods, but does not mean that they can abuse the right. Consumers who return goods in violation of the principle of good faith constitute an abuse of rights, and the platform has the right to take administrative measures against abusive users according to the rules of the platform on the premise of not violating laws and regulations.

02The Justification of Platform Autonomy Rules for Suspension and Cessation of Service Measures for Consumers Abusing Their Rights

The court established a rule of decision on this issue, that is, the platform autonomy rules signed between the e-commerce platform operator and the user are not ipso facto invalid although they are a form contract unilaterally provided by the e-commerce platform.

03Relationship between Platform Autonomy Rules and National Laws and Regulations

The case established the following rule of decision: platform autonomy rules are an important way to autonomously govern cyberspace with the platform as the operator and manager of online services within the scope allowed by national laws. Without violating laws and regulations, the autonomy of the platform is respected, and the management measures taken by the platform in accordance with its autonomy rules for the users on the platform should be supported according to the law. The adjudication rules not only provide a new way for cyberspace governance, but also make up for the inadequacy of the existing laws on dispute resolution for network services.

The rights and obligations of consumers in the online trading environment are different from those of traditional consumers, and if the rights and obligations between consumers and platforms are not redistributed and redefined, a series of problems are likely to arise, such as consumers abusing their rights to disturb the order of online trading, or platforms excessively restraining consumers to the extent of harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. The decision rules established in this case are of great significance in clarifying the rights and obligations of the e-commerce platform and the users, coordinating the balance of interests between the two, and promoting the orderly and healthy development of the e-commerce market.

More exciting e-commerce dry goods in this site, please continue to support, pay attention to us it