Should Ma Be Responsible For Taobao's Fake Products?

At the beginning of 2015, a spat war between the SAIC and Alibaba triggered the concern of China and the whole world.

In January 23rd, SAIC issued a "directional monitoring result of online transactions in the second half of 2014". The test results show that Taobao has the lowest rate of genuine products, only 37.25%, about 60% of the goods are non genuine. In January 27th, SAIC held a press conference to introduce the special action of "red shield net sword" in 2014, and announced 10 typical cases of Internet fraud, of which 5 involved Taobao. In January 28th, SAIC issued a white paper on the administrative guidance to Alibaba group on the official website. It said: "Taobao staff suspected of leaking information in advance to the illegal online shop, causing the business sector to investigate passively" and "counterfeit and shoddy goods". Illegal goods are often ineffective, illegal behavior is neglected, there are selective evasion tendencies, providing growth space for unfair competition behavior, and the dominant position of the platform when performing obligations, there is a big bullying phenomenon.

In January 27th, Taobao passed the official letter from the official micro-blog to "a post-80s Taobao network operation". On the 29 day, a Tmall company once again issued an open letter, saying that if it did not give the statement, it would bring an administrative lawsuit to the SAIC. On the same day, a netizen claiming to be "industrial and commercial Xiaobian" issued a reply in micro-blog, saying that the industry and commerce did not target Taobao, and Taobao also made a mistake.

Alibaba and SAIC launched a war of words that directly led to Alibaba. Price of stock Crash.

The battle between Alibaba and SAIC did not last long. When the audience put up a bench and waited for the wonderful plot, the two shook hands. The SAIC stated that the white paper had no legal effect and removed it from the website.

However, the latest media reports say the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP company in January 20th has filed a lawsuit against the Alibaba and its management on behalf of some investors to the Southern District Court of New York. The main reason for the prosecution is that Alibaba There was no disclosure of the July 2014 meeting with SAIC and SAIC's concerns about possible illegal business practices of Alibaba.

This dramatic incident has aroused great concern from all sides. The SAIC and Alibaba, even the officials (consumers and infringers) have expressed their grievances.

Taobao this time State Administration for Industry and Commerce There are two reasons to react fiercely. First, fake products are not caused by Taobao. Second, it is considered that "SAIC is not only too small in sampling but also in logic confusion, and there are procedural irregularities". Here, we need to answer two questions: do Taobao need to monitor and take charge of the business holiday?

The grievances of the SAIC came from two aspects. One is the suspicion of Taobao that its inspection is discriminated against Taobao. The other is the market's query that the SAIC has replaced the administrative penalty with the white paper instead of the Alibaba.

Actually, the officials (consumers and the infringed) also feel wronged. The grievance of the officials is that the two of you have come to fight for reconciliation.

To solve grievances, we must clarify two issues from the legal perspective.