China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

SPC Issues Juridical Interpretation on Online Consumer Disputes

Tue, 29 Mar 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 1 March 2022, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Cases Involving Online Consumer Disputes (I)” (hereinafter “the Provisions”, 关于审理网络消费纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定(一)), with effect from 15 March 2022.

The Provisions incorporates 20 articles, mainly regulating online consumption contracts, liabilities in live-streaming marketing, and takeaway catering services. The key points are as follows.

1. Regulating standard clauses of online consumption contracts

Article 1 of the Provisions lists commonly-seen standard clauses unfair or unreasonable to consumers and declares them invalid. Such clauses include, “signing for the receipt of goods representing by default the goods have acceptable quality” and “the business operators’ unilateral interpretation, or the final interpretation, of the contract terms.”

2. Clarifying the responsibility of e-commerce platforms

E-commerce platforms shall bear the responsibility as the product seller or service provider when conducting self-operated business. This responsibility also applies to the situation when the e-commerce platform is not de facto a self-operated business but its trademark is sufficient to mislead consumers to believe that it is self-operated.  

3. Clarifying the liability in live-streaming marketing

When the employees of a business operator conduct false advertising or other conduct causing damages to consumers, the people’s court shall support the consumers’ claim that the business operator on the e-commerce platforms is liable to compensate for such damages.

 

 

Cover Photo by Kaiwen Zhao on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.

China Overhauls Arbitration Law for Global Alignment

Having entered into force on March 1, 2026, China’s first comprehensive revision of its 1995 Arbitration Law has introduced ad hoc arbitration, strengthened interim relief, and aligned the legal framework more closely with international standards.