news

blue whale news, september 27 (reporter tang shiyun)on september 12, blue whale news exclusively reported that "crazy little yang" was selling "hong kong mooncakes" in a live broadcast room. the incident subsequently attracted widespread attention from society. on the evening of the 26th, the hefei city joint investigation team issued a briefing on relevant issues existing in the live broadcast of three sheep. three sheep was fined 68.9491 million yuan and ordered to suspend operations and make rectifications within a time limit.

meicheng's three sheep products constitute false propaganda, and units and individuals who neglect their duties will be put on file.

ten days after opening an investigation into the problem of three sheep’s live streaming, hefei issued a briefing on the situation. the notice shows that in accordance with the administrative penalty law, the anti-unfair competition law and other relevant provisions, it is planned to decide to confiscate illegal gains and fine sanyang company totaling 68.9491 million yuan.

in addition, sanyang was ordered to suspend operations within a time limit for rectification, and the disciplinary inspection and supervision department will investigate units and relevant personnel who neglected their duties during the work process. a lawyer told blue whale reporters that the emergence of the discipline inspection and supervision commission means that this case also involvesduty crimeclue.

that night, the douyin e-commerce security center issued a penalty announcement on three sheep. since september 21, the platform has suspended the accounts of "three sheep" and will urge rectification and proper settlement of after-sales compensation issues.

on the morning of the 27th, blue whale reporters called the hefei municipal supervision bureau to learn more about the situation. the staff said that the handling of the three sheep incident is proceeding according to procedures. please refer to the report for the latest progress. according to the notice received by the duty room, interviews from all media will not be accepted for the time being.

it is worth noting that sanyang’s online customer service responded to a reporter’s inquiry today and said that it has now started refunding one and paying three for orders of moon cakes and beef rolls.

lawyer’s interpretation: who is responsible for the three sheep? who will bear the responsibility to refund one and compensate three?

1. what specific laws and regulations did three sheep’s actions violate?

the investigation team’s report showed that the punishment of three sheep was based on the administrative penalty law, the anti-unfair competition law and other relevant regulations. several lawyers analyzed that three sheep may have violated articles 6 and 8 of the anti-unfair competition law when selling meicheng mooncakes and australian grain-fed beef rolls. taking the mooncakes involved as an example, the three sheep anchor repeatedly stressed in the live broadcast room that they are "meicheng's" and "hong kong's", which may cause some consumers to misunderstand the goods being sold and mistakenly believe that the goods they are selling are. hong kong’s famous mooncake brand maxim’s mooncakes.

three sheep issued a statement saying that we will comprehensively carry out internal rectification of the company in accordance with the "consumer rights protection law of the people's republic of china", "internet anchor code of conduct" and other relevant laws and regulations, operate in accordance with the law, and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

zhang chi from shanghai youan law firm said that the reason why the municipal supervision bureau and three sheep cited different laws in the information released to the outside world is because the two parties have different positions and the actions they need to take. one is that the administrative agency applies relevant laws on administrative penalties to make administrative penalty decisions, and the other is that the live broadcast promoter rectifies itself in accordance with the anchor industry standards and the consumer rights protection law. moreover, both parties used the word "etc." when referring to laws and regulations, and the relevant expressions were not inappropriate.

2. how is "68.9491 million yuan" calculated?

article 29 of the "administrative penalty law" stipulates: no administrative penalty of fines shall be imposed more than twice for the same illegal act of a party. if the same illegal act violates multiple legal norms and should be punished with a fine, the punishment with the higher amount of fine will be followed.

officials did not disclose the specific amounts of illegal gains and fines. lawyer lian runmin, deputy director of the internet compliance enterprise legal affairs department of beijing jingshi (hangzhou) law firm, pointed out that the general fine amount is calculated as one to five times the illegal income, depending on the specific circumstances.

3. what responsibilities do the anchors involved and three sheep company have to bear?

lawyer lian runmin said that the live broadcast promotion of products by three sheep’s anchors was an official act and he did not need to bear any responsibility, but three sheep company needs to bear corresponding responsibilities.

regarding the identity and responsibility of three sheep company in this incident, legal blogger @法界王凯 believes that the official definition of live streaming in the notification is an online promotion service, and the responsibility of the anchor is to verify merchant qualifications and product information. , no false propaganda is allowed, as for the responsibility for product quality assurance still lies with the merchant.

wang kai further explained that sanyang’s current behavior should not be recognized as an operator. it mainly applies the anti-unfair competition law and advertising law, and bears corresponding legal liability for false propaganda.

article 55, paragraph 1 of the advertising law stipulates that if anyone violates the provisions of this law and publishes false advertisements, the market supervision and management department shall order him to stop publishing advertisements, order the advertiser to eliminate the impact within the corresponding scope, and impose a fine of more than three times the advertising fee. a fine of up to five times.

4. who will be responsible for refunding one and compensating for three?

last night’s report did not cover the specific content of consumer compensation. according to article 55 of the "consumer rights protection law of the people's republic of china", when operators engage in fraudulent behavior in providing goods or services, they should increase compensation for their losses at the request of consumers. the amount of increased compensation shall be three times the price of goods purchased or services received by consumers; if the amount of increased compensation is less than 500 yuan, it shall be calculated as 500 yuan.

lawyer lian runmin pointed out that if an operator (usually a manufacturer or distributor) commits consumer fraud, it will be liable for one false product and three indemnity. three sheep company cannot be regarded as an operator and does not need to bear triple compensation according to law. "although some live broadcast rooms have previously announced that one will be refunded and three will be compensated, the anchor company's advance payment may be to fulfill the liability of compensation on behalf of the manufacturer. the real responsibility bearer is still the manufacturer."

as of september 13 (the day after the mooncake incident was exposed), the meichengli brand’s douyin live broadcast sales in the past month were approximately 5000-7500w, and the top 5 sales by its delivery experts were all three sheep anchors account. if the compensation is tripled on this scale, it would be a huge expense.

5. who made up the false promotion information?

many lawyers interviewed pointed out that from a consumer perspective, there is no need to examine whether the manufacturer or the anchor fabricated the false promotion information. anchors bear the basic obligation to distinguish between true and false information provided by operators, and operators should be responsible for the authenticity of the information provided to anchors. consumer losses caused by both parties failing to perform their duties may be referred to the civil code. if two or more people bear joint and several liability in accordance with the law, the rights holder has the right to request some or all of the jointly and severally liable persons to bear liability. the share of liability of jointly and severally liable persons is determined based on the size of their respective responsibilities.

if the false propaganda content is created by the anchor rather than provided by the manufacturer, the manufacturer may also assume liability and seek compensation from the anchor.