The trial of Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" opened: both the prosecution and the defense are willing to mediate. The "fake bird's nest incident" first fermented in June 2020-some consumers questioned that the bird's nest promoted by the Simba team in the live broadcast was a "fake", and the controversy quickly heated up. Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" case opened: both the prosecution and the defense are willing to mediate.
Trial of Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" case: Both the prosecution and the defense are willing to mediate 1 Henan Consumers Association (hereinafter referred to as Henan Consumers Association) to sue Xin Youzhi (Aauto Express One Anchor Simba) and a number of related companies for the "Bird's Nest Incident". The case was heard in Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court on May 9, and Henan Consumers Association demanded that the account of Simba Live Room be permanently banned and the compensation be refunded to 79,265,438 yuan.
The incident originated from June 5438 +2020 10. The bird's nest sold by the anchor "Beauty of Normal University" in its live broadcast room was questioned as "sugar water", which caused an uproar on the Internet. The anchor is Simba's anchor. At that time, Simba and the anchor responded to the question, saying that they were all qualified and genuine.
The test report issued by professional counterfeiter Wang Hai "Real Hammer" shows that the bird's nest sold by Simba team does not meet one of the important indicators of bird's nest. Simba and his team issued an apology letter in June, 2020 +065438+ 10, and proposed compensation.
Subsequently, the State Administration of Market Supervision and Guangzhou Kuaiche successively joined the investigation. As a result, Guangzhou He Yi E-Commerce Co., Ltd. made an administrative penalty of ordering to stop the illegal act and fined 900,000 yuan. Guangzhou Rongyu Trading Co., Ltd., the main seller of the goods involved, was ordered to stop the illegal act and fined 2 million yuan.
The brand's bird's nest products were taken off the platform of Aauto Quicker, Simba and Shida Beauty Live Studio were closed for 60 days, and 27 e-commerce anchors of Heyi Company and affiliated companies were closed for rectification 15 days, requiring the company to organize its e-commerce anchors to carry out relevant training and study.
Henan Consumers Association said on June 5,438+10 this year that after investigation, Simba publicly admitted that the sales amount was about15,495,760 yuan, but after actual investigation, the total transaction amount of online flagship stores only reached19,928,539 yuan (since September 202010) Among them, 2 124 transactions were made in Henan province, with a total turnover of 60 1 465,438+10,000 yuan. Henan Consumers Association decided to file a consumer civil public interest lawsuit against Simba and a number of related companies.
65438+1October 65438+April 4, Xinxuan Group issued a statement on the Bird's Nest incident in Weibo. The statement showed that Xinxuan put forward the "advance payment scheme" on October 27, 2020, recalled the products and promised to return one and compensate three. By the time of publication, more than RMB 465,438+10,000 had been paid, and all consumers who can be contacted and meet the refund conditions have paid.
On May 9, during the trial, the plaintiff, Henan Consumers Association, believed that this incident infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of many unspecified consumers and caused serious damage to the public interests, which met the legal conditions for bringing a consumer civil public interest lawsuit. Chen Haifeng, his attorney, also cited the sales data of 5438+ 10/June released by Henan Consumers Association.
The defendant's lawyer believes that this case belongs to a specific situation with a large number of consumers and does not meet the formal requirements of public interest litigation.
At the same time, Tmall's attorney said that the relevant data used by the plaintiff's lawyer did not match the actual sales order of Simba.
Henan Consumers Association also mentioned in the indictment that Simba, as the anchor of Aauto fast-moving platform, has a large number of fans and influence, and is also the actual controller of Guangzhou Heyi in the company involved. In fact, he participated in the sales and should bear joint and several liability.
Simba's attorney said that the case was that Guangzhou Rongyu Company defrauded consumers and should bear the legal responsibility of "returning one and losing three". It has no intention of defrauding consumers, and should not bear the legal responsibility of "returning one and losing three" with Guangzhou Rongyu Company. In addition, consumers have been paid in advance according to the standard of "one refund and three compensations", and the compensation of 797 1.4 1.56 million yuan proposed by Henan Consumers Association lacks legal basis.
Regarding whether Simba's live room account should be banned, Simba's attorney believes that permanently banning the live room account is not a clearly defined way of civil liability, but a management measure that the platform operator may take to maintain the platform order. If the operation of the platform complies with the law, the judicial organs should not interfere with the freedom of operation of the platform.
After the trial ended on May 9, it was reported that all parties were willing to mediate under the auspices of the court. Because the case itself is complicated, and Simba and its company have made compensation before, it is still unknown when the case will end.
Trial of Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" case: Both the prosecution and the defense are willing to mediate. Although it has been 1 years since Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" incident, its influence is far from over.
On May 9, Henan Consumers Association (hereinafter referred to as "Henan Consumers Association") filed a consumer civil public interest lawsuit against Simba (Xin Youzhi) and a number of related companies, which was heard in Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as "Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court").
On May 9th, the case of Henan Consumers Association v. Simba Bird's Nest was held in Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court.
Looking back, the "fake bird's nest incident" first fermented in June 2020 at 5438+065438+ 10-some consumers questioned that the bird's nest promoted by Simba team in the live broadcast room was a "fake", and then the controversy quickly heated up. On February 23 of that year, at 65438, Guangzhou Municipal Market Supervision Bureau reported the investigation and handling of the incident of "Simba live broadcast of ready-to-eat bird's nest with goods".
The two companies involved were fined 2.9 million yuan for misleading commercial propaganda and defective product labels.
In response to the above incidents, Henan Consumers Association filed a consumer civil public interest lawsuit in August, 20021,including restoring the original state and permanently sealing Simba's Aauto fast-disappearing account.
On the afternoon of 9th, # Henan Consumers Association sued Simba, which caused controversy # once rushed to Weibo for hot search.
The reporter of Shanghai Securities Journal learned that in this case, Henan Consumers Association listed Xinyouzhi (Simba) and its shareholding company Guangzhou He Yi E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Rongyu Trading Co., Ltd., the actual seller of Sweet Water Bird's Nest, the manufacturer Dazhou Xinyan (Xiamen University) Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Beijing Aotekuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd. as defendants.
It is reported that the dispute in this case mainly revolves around two focuses:
First, does Simba (Xin Youzhi) have to bear the responsibility of returning nearly 80 million yuan?
Second, is it beyond the scope of litigation to permanently ban accounts?
Focus 1
Does Simba (Xin Youzhi) have to bear the responsibility of returning nearly 80 million yuan?
In response to the "fake bird's nest" incident, Simba issued an apology letter in June+1October 2020+1October, saying that there was indeed exaggerated propaganda and the product was actually a bird's nest-flavored beverage. He is willing to "refund one and pay three" to pay consumers. According to its disclosure, the product involved 57,820 orders, and the transaction price was 65.438+05.49 million yuan. It is estimated that * * * will pay 6 1.98 million yuan.
However, Chen Haifeng, the plaintiff's attorney in this case, publicly stated that the data obtained after the actual investigation showed that the total transaction volume of online flagship stores alone had reached 19928539 yuan (that is, the total sales volume from the date of live delivery on September 17, 2020 to the date when the flagship store in Zhi Ming was closed). Among them, 2 124 transactions were made in Henan province, with a total turnover of 60 1 and 4 1 000 yuan.
However, regarding the amount mentioned by Chen Haifeng, Tmall's attorney said that the relevant data of the total sales amount of the plaintiff's lawyer using the flagship store was given at the request of the procuratorate, but the range of consumers involved was inconsistent with the actual sales order in Zimbabwe. If the court wants to know the relevant data later, Tmall is willing to cooperate with legal assistance to obtain evidence.
In this public interest litigation, the demands of Henan Consumers Association are: Guangzhou Rongyu Company, Guangzhou Heyi Company, Dazhou Xinyan, live broadcast platform A Auto Fast, and * * all bear the responsibility of "returning one and losing three", returning the total sales price of "Zhi Ming Bowl Ready-to-eat Bird's Nest" products 19928539 yuan, and imposing punitive damages of 3 times the total sales price * * RMB.
At the same time, Henan Consumers Association stated in the indictment that Xin Youzhi, as the head anchor of Aauto's fast-moving platform, has a large number of fans and great influence, and is also the actual controller of Guangzhou Heyi Company. In fact, he also participated in the live sales of this case and should bear the corresponding joint and several liability for compensation.
In this regard, the defendant Simba lawyer believes that this case is Guangzhou Rongyu Company defrauding consumers and should bear the legal responsibility of "returning one and losing three". It has no intention of defrauding consumers, and should not bear the legal responsibility of "returning one and losing three" with Guangzhou Rongyu Company.
In addition, it claimed that consumers who bought famous bird's nest products through the link of "Normal University Beauty" live broadcast room were paid in advance by Guangzhou Heyi Company according to the standard of "return one and lose three", and the total amount of compensation was about 4 15 1000 yuan, and the Henan Consumers Association advocated a refund of 797 14 1560 yuan.
Focus 2
Is the permanently banned account beyond the scope of litigation?
In addition to demanding the return of nearly 80 million yuan, the Henan Consumers Association also appealed to the court, demanding that A auto be ordered to permanently close the accounts of Xinyouzhi and Guangzhou Heyi Company more quickly.
It is reported that in response to the Simba Bird's Nest incident, Aauto Quicker released the official punishment result on February 23, 2020: Simba's personal account was blocked for 60 days.
In response to the appeal of permanently banning live accounts, Guangzhou Heyi Company said that the appeal of Henan Consumers Association has no factual and legal basis.
Simba's attorney believes that permanently closing the live broadcast room account is not a civil liability bearing method clearly stipulated by law, but a management measure that the platform operator may take to maintain the platform order. When the business activities of platform operators comply with laws and regulations, judicial organs should not interfere with their freedom of operation.
The reporter of the Shanghai Stock Exchange learned that this case is the first consumer civil public interest litigation case filed by the Consumers Association in Henan Province, and it is also a typical case of regulating live broadcast with goods in China, governing the new format of e-commerce live broadcast, and trying to solve the legal problems of "online celebrity live broadcast sales model with goods".
At the end of the trial in the first instance on the 9th, both the prosecution and the defense expressed their willingness to mediate under the auspices of the court. The reporter will continue to pay attention to the progress of follow-up cases.
Trial of Simba's "Bird's Nest in Sugar Water" case: Both the prosecution and the defense are willing to mediate. On May 9th, Henan Consumers Association held a hearing in Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court on the consumer public interest civil lawsuit against Simba (Xin Youzhi) Bird's Nest Incident. Due to the epidemic, the case was heard online at 9 am that day.
The reporter noticed that in the online trial, both the prosecution and the defense read out the indictment and the defense in court respectively, and made cross-examination opinions on the evidence submitted by them. At the end of the trial, both parties expressed their willingness to mediate under the auspices of the court.
It is understood that this case is the first consumer civil public interest litigation case filed by a consumer association in Henan Province, and it is also a typical case of regulating live broadcast with goods in China, managing the new format of e-commerce live broadcast, and trying to solve the legal problem of "online celebrity live broadcast sales model with goods".
The account will be restarted after being blocked for 90 days.
Henan Consumers Association hopes to "permanently close" the account.
The "Bird's Nest Incident in Simba Live Room" can be traced back to 2020 at the earliest.
On June 5, 2020, 165438+ a short video platform user questioned that the bird's nest sold by Simba team was "like sugar water, there is no solid".
165438+1October 19, professional counterfeiter Wang Hai released a test report, claiming that the content of protein and amino acids in the bird's nest products sold by Simba team is zero, and sialic acid, one of the important indicators of true bird's nest, only contains 0.0 14%.
165438+1October 27th, Simba issued a letter of apology in response, saying that there was indeed exaggerated publicity, and the product was indeed a bird's nest-flavored beverage, and it was willing to refund consumers one for three.
On the evening of February 23, 65438, Aauto FMCG released the official punishment result of the Simba Bird's Nest incident, and Simba's personal account was suspended for 60 days. On the same day, Guangzhou Municipal Market Supervision Administration issued the Circular on the Investigation and Handling of the Instant Bird's Nest Incident of Simba Live Broadcasting with Goods. According to the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the market supervision department intends to impose an administrative penalty of ordering it to stop the illegal act and imposing a fine of 900,000 yuan.
According to the news of Henan Consumers Association, at the end of February 65438+ in 2020, Henan Consumers Association received complaints from consumers, claiming that the brand "Xiaojin Bowl Instant Rock Sugar Bird's Nest" purchased in a live broadcast room of a platform in Xinyouzhi (Simba) was a flavor drink, not an instant bird's nest, and was suspected of defrauding consumers.
After investigation, Simba publicly admitted that the sales amount was about 15495760 yuan. However, according to the actual data obtained after the investigation, the total transaction amount of online flagship stores only reached 19928539 yuan (the total sales amount from the date of live delivery on September 17, 2020 to the date when the flagship store of "Zhi Ming" was closed). Among them, 2 124 transactions were made in Henan province, with a total turnover of 60 1 465,438+10,000 yuan.
On February 26th, 20021year, Henan Consumers Association held a media briefing, expressing the hope that the platform live broadcast platform would punish the Simba team with a permanent title instead of a 60-day title.
On March 27th, 20021year, the Simba account restarted the live broadcast.
The lawsuit claims nearly 80 million yuan.
Xin Xuan said that he would be "responsible to the end"
In 2022, the "Bird's Nest Incident in Simba Live Room" made new progress.
On June 65438+1October 65438+April, 2022, Henan Consumers Association held a news briefing on the lawsuit of "Simba Live Instant Bird's Nest Consumption Civil Public Interest Litigation Case".
It is understood that the demands of the consumer civil public interest litigation filed by Henan Consumers Association are: Beijing Aotekuai Technology Co., Ltd., Simba (Xin Youzhi), Guangzhou Rongyu Trading Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou He Yi E-commerce Co., Ltd. * * * all bear the responsibility of returning one product and compensating three products, returning the total sales price of "Zhi Ming Bowl-flavored Instant Bird's Nest" products to 65,438 yuan+09,928,539 yuan, and imposing a penalty of three times the total sales price.
According to Dahe Daily, Henan Consumers Association completed the work procedures of interviewing enterprises, investigation and evidence collection, discussion, expert argumentation, examination and approval on July 30th, 20021. On August 3rd, 20021year, Henan Consumers Association submitted the filing materials to Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court online. In the same year, Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court accepted the case on February 5, 65438.
On the afternoon of June 5438+1October 65438+April 22, the official blog of Xinxuan Group, founded by Simba, issued a post, apologizing to consumers again for the "Bird's Nest Incident", saying: "After verification, as of June 65438+1October 65438+April, 2022,
Up to now, the company has been able to contact consumers who meet the refund conditions and have paid all of them. Xinxuan Group also stated in the statement, "As long as the users meet the reimbursement conditions, we will continue to honor our promises and be responsible for the end, without time limit, until they are fully paid."
On April 24th, Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court announced that Henan Consumers Association v. Simba Bird's Nest Incident, showing that Xinyouzhi (Simba), the actual seller of Sweet Water Bird's Nest, and its shareholding companies Guangzhou He Yi E-commerce Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Rongyu Trading Co., Ltd., the manufacturer Dazhou Xinyan (Xiamen University) Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Beijing Aotekuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd. were the six defendants in this case.
It is understood that this public interest litigation work of Henan Consumers Association has received strong support from the People's Procuratorate of Henan Province. This is the first public interest litigation case of cooperation and collaboration after the two sides jointly formulated the working mechanism of public interest litigation.
Many topics in the trial are controversial.
The two sides expressed their willingness to mediate under the auspices of the court.
The reporter learned that in the process of prosecution, Henan Consumers Association and Simba have the support of netizens. Among them, whether the claim of nearly 80 million yuan is reasonable and whether the permanently banned account is beyond the scope of litigation has become the most controversial topic.
The newspaper said that in the online trial on May 9, the focus was whether there were "unspecified consumer groups" and the Henan Consumers Association was accused of failing to perform its duties. In the indictment, Henan Consumers Association said that this incident violated the legitimate rights and interests of many unspecified consumers and caused serious damage to the public interests, which met the statutory conditions for bringing a consumer civil public interest lawsuit.
In the defense, Simba's attorney said that they had communicated with Henan Consumers Association for many times and hoped that Henan Consumers Association would provide a list of consumers who bought Zhi Ming Bird's Nest products through the link of "Shidamei" live broadcast room and failed to get the first refund, especially the list of consumers in Henan Province, so as to get the first refund. However, as of the day of the trial, Henan Consumers Association failed to provide the relevant list.
The biggest controversy in this case is the issue of permanently banning accounts. During the trial, lawyers representing several defendants believed that because of the goods involved, A Auto Fast Company took measures such as suspending Simba's live broadcast for 60 days, and did not increase the legal basis for "permanent closure".
Simba's attorney believes that permanently closing the live broadcast room account is not a civil liability bearing method clearly stipulated by law, but a management measure that the platform operator may take to maintain the platform order. The judicial organs should not interfere with the freedom of operation of platform operators if their business activities comply with laws and regulations.
In view of the demand of "one refund and three compensations" as high as 797 1.4 1.56 million yuan in the indictment of Henan Consumers Association, Xinyouzhi and Guangzhou Heyi Company stated in their defense that the claims of Henan Consumers Association have no factual basis and legal basis, and urged the court to objectively and fairly identify the facts of the case according to law and reject all claims of Henan Consumers Association.
At the end of the trial, both parties expressed their willingness to mediate under the auspices of the court.