Ziniu’s opinion | Car reviewer apologized after “crash test”, what’s the problem with wild “review”?
2024-08-25
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
Recently, a car reviewer released a video of a "collision test" of two brands of vehicles, and later apologized for the inaccurate content, which triggered people's thinking about product "evaluation". Various "evaluations" seem easy, but there should be a legal bottom line behind them that cannot be ignored. Regardless of whether the deviation is caused by intentional or negligent, the corresponding responsibility needs to be taken.
After the car reviewer's "crash test" video was released, the video was played 1.3 million times, and the two car companies responded quickly. One car company said that the test was not rigorous, complete, and scientific in terms of setting, recording, and conclusion. The other car company said that it did not cooperate with any individual or organization in such tests, did not agree with or participate in any "pull-down" marketing that "smeared friendly companies", and resolutely resisted and opposed any suspected "unfair competition" behavior. Obviously, both car companies did not buy it, and even reserved the right to pursue the relevant legal responsibilities of the car reviewer.
How to judge when a "review" turns into a "bad review"? First of all, the Civil Code gives the actor certain rights. If he conducts news reporting, public opinion supervision and other behaviors for the public interest and affects the reputation of others, he will not bear civil liability. However, if there are behaviors such as random reviews or receiving benefits, it is not for the public interest, and the corresponding tort liability must still be borne. This behavior involves infringement of reputation rights, unfair competition, etc., and usually requires compensation for damages, cessation of infringement and elimination of impact.
The author believes that vehicle collision testing involves the safety of tens of millions of drivers and pedestrians. It is an extremely rigorous and complex test and a professional technology. It is usually conducted by the C-NCAP China Automotive Technology Research Center. In addition, different countries have different independent collision test agencies for cars entering the market. These evaluations together constitute the safety bottom line of a car. Although some evaluations may be more acceptable to consumers, individual evaluations cannot replace scientific and professional testing or even represent the image of the entire product.
In the Internet age, various bloggers can promote honesty and product quality by evaluating products. However, due to regulatory blind spots and traffic monetization, some reviewers constantly update their forms to gain attention in order to compete for the economic benefits behind the traffic. It should be noted that the evaluation should be judged from the perspective of consumers. In the final analysis, "Internet celebrities" and "car reviewers" should still regard themselves as consumers. Professionals do professional things, and there is no room for bias in safety issues. Once there is a deviation, there will be legal risks.
Commentator Liu Liu
Proofread by Li Haihui
