"Plant grass, try it out, avoid pitfalls..." Are the evaluation videos with various labels worth trusting? Recently, the Huqiu Court in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province reported such a case.
Lao Wang is a self-media and e-commerce live broadcast practitioner with a cumulative fan base of more than 30 million on the entire network. In the first half of 2023, Lao Wang promoted latex mattresses, latex pillows and other products in live broadcasts.
Regarding the latex mattresses, latex pillows and other products it promotes, an evaluation account with more than 300,000 fans published 3 evaluation videos between May and August 2023. The
video includes "Selling garbage latex", "How Internet celebrities with tens of millions of fans eat the inside out", "Selling garbage brings garbage to consumers", "Why do big Internet celebrities sell goods without a bottom line" and "Cut consumers' leeks" and other content, and one of the videos also used Lao Wang’s portrait.
The above-mentioned video has received more than 3,000 likes and over 900 comments and shares since it was released. In the comment area, there are words such as "It makes me sick to watch", "This guy wants all kinds of money, dirty money, get rid of it" and "That guy has no bottom line" " and other negative comments.
Afterwards, Lao Wang sued the operating company of the evaluation account to the court. The defendant argued that the content of the video he posted was objective and true, had reliable sources of information, and fulfilled its obligations of reasonable verification. It did not use insulting words, and it was a legal act to implement public opinion supervision for the public interest.
After hearing, the court held that according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the speech published in the implementation of public opinion supervision should comply with reasonable limits and should be based on the disclosure of true facts. When the disclosed facts are untrue or the speech exceeds reasonable limits, infringement occurs. People should bear tort liability in accordance with the law.
In this case, the plaintiff is a well-known blogger and a public figure with a certain degree of popularity and influence. He has corresponding obligations of tolerance in accepting the supervision of public opinion and satisfying the public's right to know.
However, the defendant’s negative comments about the latex mattresses sold by the plaintiff such as “junk” in the video were not based on his own evaluation or experience of the products sold by the plaintiff, and lacked understanding of the content that may cause controversy. It needs to be investigated, failed to fulfill its duty of due care and attention . The comments such as "trash blogger" and "no bottom line" published in the video involved used insulting language to negatively evaluate the plaintiff. His behavior was intentional to damage the plaintiff's reputation, was obviously wrong, and objectively lowered the plaintiff's reputation. Social evaluation, constitutes reputational infringement . At the same time, the defendant used the plaintiff's portrait in the video without the plaintiff's permission, which constituted an infringement of portrait rights and should also bear corresponding infringement liability.
Taking into consideration the popularity of the parties, the degree of subjective fault of the defendant, the extent, scope and consequences of the infringement, the court ruled in accordance with the law that the defendant immediately stopped the infringement, publicly apologized and compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 23,000 yuan. The judgment has taken effect.
The judge said:
In the era of Internet shopping, review bloggers should explain product performance, quality, pros and cons to consumers through product testing, comparison, and experience, and provide consumers with reasonable and objective consumption guidance. However, in order to attract traffic or promote product cooperation, some review bloggers will publish reviews that are inconsistent with the facts, overly exaggerated, and deliberately derogatory.
The impact of content published by review bloggers on consumer choices is gradually expanding, and its impact on product goodwill is also increasing. Unlike ordinary consumers, review bloggers should be more cautious in fulfilling their censorship obligations when publishing review content, and avoid making unobjective, untrue, or even insulting and defamatory statements. What is the "correct posture" for
evaluation bloggers?
First, when review bloggers publish review content, they should be based on real use . The review method should be scientific, transparent, and open, and provide feedback on their objective and neutral usage experience, and avoid making things out of nothing, overexaggerating, deliberately derogatory or even insulting. sexual expression and evaluation.
Second, if there are commercial promotion activities such as product promotion and advertising, evaluation bloggers should also express this through evaluation content, pinned evaluations, etc. to avoid cutting off fans in the name of evaluation, which will affect their own business and the business of promoted products. reputation.
Third, if the evaluation content overlaps with the business "track" of itself or its affiliated companies, in the horizontal evaluation of similar products, should avoid direct comparisons that one-sidedly highlight its own advantages and spread the disadvantages of competitors to highlight the competition of its own products. Advantages and beware of falling into the legal whirlpool of unfair competition.
Xiaoxiang Morning News Comprehensive Suzhou Huqiu Court
