Analysis of Representative Consumer Rights Protection Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court (I)

On March 15, 2026, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China released a series of representative cases concerning the protection of consumer rights and interests, reflecting the judicial philosophy of "safeguarding fair consumption through the rule of law."  Set forth below is a brief legal analysis of several selected cases.

I. Case One: Weight-Loss Food Containing Toxic and Harmful Substances — Tenfold Punitive Damages Imposed for Illegal Conduct

Facts of the Case: Mr. Yu purchased weight-loss food products from an online store operated by Mr. Zhang through an e-commerce platform and paid a purchase price of more than RMB 2,000. Upon receipt of the products, Mr. Yu discovered that the manufacturer indicated on the packaging had had its business license revoked more than ten years earlier, thereby arousing suspicion regarding the legitimacy and safety of the products.  Concerned about food safety, Mr. Yu reported the matter to the public security authorities.  Subsequent professional testing confirmed that the products contained sibutramine, a substance expressly prohibited by the State from being added to food products.  Mr. Yu thereafter instituted legal proceedings, requesting the court to order Mr. Zhang to refund the purchase price and to pay punitive damages equal to ten times the purchase price.

Judgment and Legal Analysis: The court held that, as a food business operator, Mr. Zhang failed to perform the statutory duty of inspection and verification when procuring the products, including the failure to verify the manufacturer's qualifications and product conformity certificates.  By selling weight-loss food containing toxic and harmful substances, Mr. Zhang was deemed to have acted with "actual or constructive knowledge" of the illegality involved.  Accordingly, the court ordered Mr. Zhang to refund the purchase price of more than RMB 2,000 and to pay punitive damages exceeding RMB 20,000.

The judicial reasoning in this case reflects the strictest standards of judicial protection in the field of food safety.  First, the case clarifies the stringent duty of inspection imposed upon food operators.  As the operator of an online store, Mr. Zhang failed to fulfill his statutory obligations and provided a sales channel for food products of unknown origin manufactured by an entity whose business license had long since been revoked; such negligence was manifestly apparent.  Second, the case further clarifies the standard for determining "knowledge" under the law.  The judgment establishes that where a business operator fails to perform its legally mandated inspection obligations, thereby allowing food products that fail to meet safety standards to enter the market, such operator may be deemed to have acted with knowledge of the illegality.  This rule substantially reduces the evidentiary burden borne by consumers while reinforcing the duty of care owed by business operators.

II. Case Two: Inadequate Reminder for Automatic Renewal — Platform Ordered to Compensate Interest Losses for Occupation of Funds

Facts of the Case: Mr. Xie purchased an annual auto-renewal membership service on a video streaming platform operated by a certain audiovisual company and paid the corresponding subscription fee.  Nearly one year later, prior to the automatic renewal date, the platform sent a standard notification regarding renewal but failed to provide any pop-up reminder or other conspicuous notice, rendering the information difficult for consumers to access.  On the same day, the platform also attempted to send an SMS reminder; however, the message delivery failed.  The platform subsequently deducted the renewal fee directly from Mr. Xie's account.

Upon discovering the deduction, Mr. Xie alleged that the platform had failed to fulfill its obligation to provide conspicuous notice, thereby infringing upon his right to information and right of independent choice.  He consequently filed suit, requesting a refund of the renewal fee and compensation for interest losses incurred during the period in which the funds were occupied.

Judgment and Legal Analysis: After trial, the court held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Transactions, where an online business operator provides services through automatic extension or automatic renewal mechanisms, it shall, both prior to the consumer's acceptance of the service and at least five days before the automatic renewal date, draw the consumer's attention in a conspicuous manner so that the consumer may make an independent choice.

In the present case, the reminder method adopted by the audiovisual company failed to satisfy the legal requirement of being "conspicuous."  The court therefore ordered the company to compensate Mr. Xie for the interest losses arising from the occupation of his funds.  The principal issue in dispute concerned the legal standard for "conspicuous notice."  First, the case clarifies the judicial criteria for determining whether a reminder is sufficiently conspicuous.  Such determination should be based on the perception and experience of an ordinary consumer.  The combined use of pop-up notifications, highlighted displays, SMS reminders, and supplementary notice mechanisms in the event of failed delivery may collectively satisfy the legal requirement of conspicuous notice.  Second, the court reasonably determined the scope and manner of liability allocation, balancing the interests of both consumers and platform operators while reinforcing compliance obligations for businesses utilizing automatic renewal mechanisms.

III. Case Three: Full Deduction Despite Cancellation Half a Month in Advance — Standard Clause Held Invalid

Facts of the Case: During the National Day holiday period, Mr. Lu reserved a guest room at an inn through an online booking platform and prepaid accommodation fees totaling RMB 1,281.  The booking page stated: "No cancellation permitted after 30 minutes from successful booking; full prepayment shall be forfeited upon cancellation."

Approximately two hours after completing the reservation, Mr. Lu applied for cancellation because he was unable to purchase transportation tickets for the trip.  The inn refused to refund the payment on the grounds that the 30-minute cancellation period specified in the booking terms had already expired.  Mr. Lu contended that the cancellation clause unreasonably aggravated consumers' liabilities and constituted an unfair standard term.  He therefore initiated legal proceedings seeking a full refund of the accommodation fee.

Judgment and Legal Analysis: The court held that, pursuant to Article 497 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, any standard clause provided by one party that unreasonably exempts or mitigates its own liability, aggravates the liability of the other party, or restricts the principal rights of the other party shall be deemed invalid.

In this case, although the inn had displayed the clause stating that "cancellation is prohibited after 30 minutes from booking," Mr. Lu requested cancellation fourteen days prior to the scheduled check-in date, leaving the inn with ample opportunity to resell the room.  Strict enforcement of the clause would therefore impose unreasonable losses upon the consumer.  After comprehensively considering the relevant circumstances, the court ordered the inn to refund RMB 1,000 of the accommodation fee.

This case concerns the validity of standard terms in online booking transactions.  First, it clarifies the principle of fairness review applicable to standard clauses.  Since such clauses are unilaterally drafted in advance by business operators, legal regulation is intended to prevent operators from abusing their superior bargaining position to impose unfair terms.  In this case, the cancellation deadline imposed by the inn was excessively harsh and inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers.  Second, the judgment establishes the standard for determining a "reasonable period" for cancellation.  The court found that a cancellation made fourteen days in advance provided sufficient time for the inn to rearrange sales, thereby rendering the clause unreasonable.  The judgment embodies the principle of substantive fairness and reflects the court's effort to balance the interests of both parties.  Notably, the court neither ordered a full refund nor upheld the complete forfeiture of the payment.  Instead, after taking into account the actual costs potentially incurred by the business operator, the court supported the consumer's principal claims while allowing reasonable deductions.  Such nuanced adjudication not only protects consumer rights and interests but also respects the legitimate commercial interests of business operators, thereby contributing positively to the regulation of the online booking market.

In summary, the foregoing cases all address a common core issue: how to achieve substantive fairness within consumer transactions.  Collectively, they demonstrate the People's Courts' firm commitment to protecting consumer rights and interests in accordance with the law and promoting economic development through a more equitable and reasonable legal framework.