Supreme People's Court Releases Typical Cases on Consumer Rights Protection

To fully leverage the guiding role of typical cases in behavior and judicial guidance, on March 15th, International Consumer Rights Day, the Supreme People’s Court released six typical cases of consumer rights protection.

Case 1

Online transaction operators must clearly remind consumers before automatic renewal

— Xie vs. Video Streaming Company Contract Dispute

【Basic Facts】

Video Streaming Company operates a video platform. On August 23, 2021, Xie purchased a membership service via the app, selecting the “annual continuous subscription” option, which included automatic renewal terms. The service agreement stipulated that in case of billing errors, the responsible party would bear the liability based on fault. On August 10, 2022, Video Streaming Company sent a renewal reminder within the platform but did not set an automatic pop-up alert, and the path to view the message was unclear. On the same day, the company also sent an SMS reminder, which failed to deliver. Afterwards, the company did not remind Xie again. On August 20, 2022, Xie’s account was automatically charged. Xie requested a refund, which was refused. Xie filed a lawsuit, asking the court to order the company to refund and compensate for interest during the period of funds occupation. During litigation, the company voluntarily refunded the deducted amount but refused to pay interest.

【Judgment**

The court held that, according to Articles 8 and 9 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, consumers have the right to be informed and to make autonomous choices. The State Administration for Market Regulation’s Measures for Supervision and Administration of Online Transactions (effective May 1, 2021) Article 18 states that operators providing services through automatic renewal methods must prominently remind consumers at least five days before renewal or automatic extension, allowing consumers to choose freely. During the service period, operators should provide clear, convenient options for consumers to cancel or change the service at any time without unreasonable charges. In this case, although the company sent reminders via platform messages and SMS, the platform message lacked an automatic pop-up, and the viewing path was unclear. Given the platform also carried many advertisements, this reminder was not considered prominent. After SMS failure, the company did not continue to fulfill its reminder obligation, failing to adequately protect consumers’ right to informed choice. The court ultimately ruled that the company bears responsibility for the interest loss during the funds occupation period.

【Significance**

While automatic renewal makes online services more convenient, in practice, some operators lack proper reminders or make them non-prominent, and automatic cancellation is inconvenient. This case affirms that operators must clearly remind consumers of renewal terms before renewal dates; otherwise, they should compensate consumers for resulting losses. This legal ruling safeguards consumers’ right to informed choice and encourages operators to improve automatic renewal practices, preventing “silent renewal” that harms consumer interests.

Case 2

Consumers who cancel reservations after the “time limit” should have refunds determined reasonably based on actual losses and fault

— Lu vs. Inn Service Contract Dispute

【Basic Facts】

Lu booked a three-day, two-night stay at an inn via an online travel platform, paying 1,281 yuan in full. The booking page stated: “Cancellation is not allowed after 30 minutes of successful booking; cancellation requires deducting the full prepayment.” Due to inability to purchase train tickets to the destination, Lu applied for cancellation two hours after booking, requesting a full refund. The inn refused, citing that the cancellation was beyond the “time limit.” Lu sued, requesting the court to order the inn to refund 1,281 yuan.

【Judgment**

The court found that, under Articles 496 and 497 of the Civil Code, the party providing standard terms must determine rights and obligations fairly; unreasonable burdens on the other party are invalid. The inn and Lu formed a hotel service contract. Although the “30-minute no-cancellation” clause was highlighted on the order page, Lu canceled two hours after booking, with 14 days remaining before check-in. The inn had sufficient time and market conditions to resell the room. Enforcing the clause strictly would unfairly burden the consumer, violating fairness principles. The case should consider the inn’s actual loss, the impact of cancellation on secondary sales, and fault factors. The court ordered the inn to refund 1,000 yuan to Lu.

【Significance**

With rising living standards and a booming tourism market, online booking has become common. “Time-limited cancellation” clauses are used to increase order success and reduce risks, but often lead to disputes. This case balances consumer rights and business interests by considering contract performance, actual losses, and fault, promoting fair resolution and improving booking practices.

Case 3

Operators falsely advertising therapeutic products’ functions should refund and triple compensation

— Sun vs. Zhao Product Liability Dispute

【Basic Facts】

Zhao promoted a therapy product online claiming it could “lower three high” (blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol) and treat diabetes complications. Sun, aged 60, experienced the product at Zhao’s therapy shop and signed a “treatment contract,” purchasing ten sessions for over 10,000 yuan. During treatment, only ordinary skincare products were used. After four sessions, no effect was observed. Sun attempted to negotiate a refund, which failed. Sun sued, requesting a refund and triple damages for false advertising.

【Judgment**

The court held that, under the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, operators must provide truthful, comprehensive information and not make false or misleading claims. Article 55 states that if an operator commits fraud, they must compensate the consumer for losses, tripling the purchase price or service fee. Zhao falsely claimed the product could “lower three high” and exaggerated effects, inducing elderly consumers to buy. This constituted fraud, warranting a refund and punitive damages. The court ordered Zhao to refund over 10,000 yuan and pay 30,000 yuan in punitive damages.

【Significance**

Protecting elderly consumers’ rights is vital for building an age-friendly society and promoting the “silver economy.” Elderly individuals often trust health products, making them vulnerable to false advertising. Some operators exploit this, exaggerating benefits and harming their rights. This case enforces strict penalties for false advertising, safeguarding elderly consumers and encouraging truthful marketing.

Case 4

Operators falsely claiming medical aesthetic qualifications should be liable for punitive damages

— Zhang vs. Cosmetic Store Service Contract Dispute

【Basic Facts】

A cosmetic store conducted medical aesthetic services without registration or a medical license. Zhang received multiple treatments, including botox, rhinoplasty, and facial fillers, spending over 50,000 yuan. During treatment, Zhang developed nodules, pigmentation, and redness. The store falsely claimed to have medical aesthetic qualifications and assured the issues were due to personal constitution, promising repairs. After no improvement, Zhang sought hospital treatment. Zhang sued, requesting a refund and triple damages.

【Judgment**

The court found that Zhang, seeking to improve personal appearance, is a consumer under the law. According to regulations, medical aesthetic services require registration and a license. The store lacked such qualifications and continued providing services despite knowing this, with intent to deceive. The court ordered the store to refund over 50,000 yuan and pay 150,000 yuan in punitive damages.

【Significance**

With rising aesthetic standards, “beauty economy” is a new consumption trend. However, some providers operate illegally, with false advertising and substandard services, risking health and property. This case signals zero tolerance for unlicensed medical aesthetic practices, warning operators to comply with laws and protect consumer rights.

Case 5

Operators selling weight-loss foods containing prohibited ingredients should bear tenfold damages

— Yu vs. Zhang Contract Dispute

【Basic Facts】

Yu bought a weight-loss supplement from Zhang’s online shop for over 2,000 yuan. The product’s label listed a health company as the manufacturer. After receipt, Yu discovered the company’s license had been revoked over ten years ago. Yu reported to police; Zhang was criminally investigated for producing and selling toxic or harmful foods. Testing showed the product contained sibutramine, a banned additive. Yu sued, claiming the product violated food safety standards and requesting ten times the purchase price as damages.

【Judgment**

The court held that, under Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, operators knowingly selling non-compliant foods must pay ten times the price as compensation. Zhang failed to verify the product’s safety, and the product contained a banned substance. The revocation of the manufacturer’s license and the presence of sibutramine confirmed the product’s illegal status. The court supported Yu’s claim for tenfold damages, ordering Zhang to pay over 20,000 yuan.

【Significance**

As weight management demand grows, some operators add prohibited ingredients, risking health and safety. This case demonstrates strict enforcement, with penalties of tenfold damages for illegal food sales, emphasizing zero tolerance for food safety violations. Consumers should buy from reputable sources and check ingredient legality.

Case 6

Falsely claiming pet breed information constitutes fraud

— Gao vs. Pet Company Product Seller Liability

【Basic Facts】

Gao agreed to buy a purebred, healthy Pomeranian from a pet company, paying over 8,000 yuan, and required a breed certificate. After four days, Gao took the dog for veterinary checks and found dislocations, malocclusion, and tear duct issues. The breed certificate provided was forged, with no proof of purebred status. Gao sued, requesting a refund and triple damages.

【Judgment**

The court found that, under the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, providers must offer truthful information about product quality and performance. Pet breed certificates are key proof of authenticity. The pet company falsely claimed the dog was a purebred Pomeranian with a valid certificate, but the certificate was fake, and health issues appeared shortly after purchase. This constituted false advertising and fraud. The court ordered the company to refund over 8,000 yuan and pay triple damages of 20,000 yuan.

【Significance**

The pet economy is rapidly expanding, with increasing consumer demand. Breed information influences purchasing decisions. Some operators falsely promote “purebred” status to attract buyers, leading to disputes. This case upholds consumer rights by penalizing false advertising, promoting honest pet trading practices.

【Source: People’s Court Daily】