Should The Electronic Business Platform Compensate The Online Shopping Fake?

< p > according to CCTV survey, < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_s.asp" > Amazon < /a > and Dangdang cosmetics are not from official channels, while Dangdang and Estee Lauder sold cosmetics sold by Amazon are identified as fake.

Qiu Baochang, executive vice president of the Beijing consumer rights protection law society, said that the online shopping platform should be jointly liable if it knows or should know that the merchandise it sells is false and does not take measures to shield it.

False promises and false propaganda are fraudulent consumers. The platform has joint and several liability. The original is to compensate for one loss, and now it is a refund of three.

Less than 500 yuan, according to 500 yuan.

< /p >

< p > online shopping is less than a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > fake > /a >, should the electronic business platform be compensated? < /p >

< p > < strong > compensation is the price of winning trust: < /strong > /p >

< p > platform should be compensated. Even if the third party sells fake platform, the platform should make compensation, which is the compensation for consumers and the price to win trust.

This part of the compensation should be there, and the platform for its own rights, can also be punished for the third party, to make up for their losses and the third party's illegal acts to combat.

(comment on netizens: Hua Xue Chen) < /p >

< p > < strong > platform compensation is good for social integrity construction < /strong > < /p >

< p > as the saying goes, people do not have integrity and no integrity.

Tagging is genuine licensed goods, but it is fake and shoddy, not only the mood of consumers is not good, but also the business credit is defeated, and if this goes on, the construction of good faith society is far from being expected. Therefore, from this point of view, there is no need for any discussion on the electricity supplier fines.

(Wen / Wu Jun) < /p >

< p > < strong > screening the true or false of the goods is the responsibility of the electricity supplier < /strong > < /p >

< p > website as an e-commerce platform, it should make certain screening for e-commerce providers, not to earn fame and traffic, what kind of businesses are receiving, which is a trap for consumers and self destruction of websites.

If we only know that we are a platform, we will not know where to go. Then, where is the fair and just of the electricity supplier? What is the authenticity of the products? This is the responsibility of the website to the consumers, and it is also to add credit to its integrity.

(comment: chat: netizen: snow mountain without dust) < /p >

< p > < strong >, we should also investigate the interest chain behind fake commodities < /strong > < /p >.

< p > online shopping meets counterfeit goods. As a platform supplier, the electricity supplier is dereliction of duty.

We know that the warehousing of electronic products is required to sign a cooperation agreement. Some e-commerce platforms tend to attract more merchants to set up a more biased door on the gatekeeper or on the threshold. The reason why fake goods can be boarded the "electricity supplier hall" is still behind the interests of the cat.

Consumer online shopping meets counterfeit goods. First, merchants must be compensated. < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > electricity supplier < /a > must also pay a certain proportion of compensation for lax product quality certification, so as to better enable the development of the electricity supplier industry to enter a benign track without causing a flood of counterfeit goods.

Therefore, we must protect consumers' rights and interests and regard compensation as a fine.

< /p >

< p > {page_break} < /p >

"P > < strong > the supervision of fake goods is not the reason of non supervision" /strong > < /p >.

"P > difficulty is never an excuse for omission. If the electricity supplier increases the penalties for finding fake shops, such as immediately closing the store, deducting the margin, and so on, the shops selling fake goods will not be so unimpeded. Now almost any seller will dare to guarantee that they are genuine counters. They clamor for you to check the goods on the counter, but you can pay ten for the fake ones, but you really get the counters, and what are the counters for you to check? The shops selling fake goods rely on" no evidence "to continue to rampant, and the online stores make money.

(commentary chat: netizens: no good chess) < /p >

< p > < strong > there will be a fake seller if there is a fake product. < /strong > < /p >

Less than P, especially in the self run state, it is very difficult to avoid counterfeit goods. This is not useful by legal restraint, because after all, it is the last consumption link.

The upstream part that really works is the production link. If it doesn't appear in production, it will be fine, but it is impossible to produce fake products.

(comment on netizens: unfinished fireworks) < /p >

< p > < strong > platform is impossible to check every commodity supplier's /strong < < /p >.

< p > shopping malls can't guarantee that our counters don't fake goods. We buy fake goods in shopping malls, and we just go to the salesperson at the counter to ask for compensation.

The same is true for the electronic business platform. He can check the identity of the retailer again, but it is impossible to inspect every commodity. He provides only a platform.

Of course, if we can seriously deal with several shops selling fake goods openly in the shop, I believe this phenomenon will be less.

(commentary chat: netizens: baby, black dog feed) < /p >

< p > < strong > website only assumes the obligation of supervision < /strong > /p >

< p > if the website does its duty, it can not be compensated.

From the perspective of contract law, it is a specific shop that contracts with < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_s.asp" > consumer < /a >, and there is no civil sale contract relationship with the website. The website only bears the obligation of supervision.

For example, counterfeit goods also issued a series of vouchers. The website only carries out formal examination and does not carry out substantive examination. If so, it also needs compensation from the website, and the website is also too deficient.

(commentary chat: netizens: Fan Zhi) < /p >

< p > < /p >.