August 27, the National People's Congress of the four-trial e-commerce bill, compared to the previous three peer review, four review again adjust the ' counterfeiting clauses ', clearly put forward, consumer damage if it is because the e-commerce platform operator did not fulfill the audit obligations caused, then the e-commerce platform to assume the ' supplementary responsibility ', rather than ' joint responsibility '
At the same time, the four reviewers increased the penalties for the infringement and counterfeiting of online shopping, and clearly stipulated that if the e-commerce platform operator did not take the necessary measures to stop the infringement and counterfeiting of the merchant, the penalty ceiling would be raised to $2 million. Since the first 12 session of the NPC Standing Committee was brought to the fore in December 2016, the draft e-commerce law has been four.
Today, the National People's Congress, Constitution and Legal Committee of the relevant head of the draft e-commerce bill to consider the results of the report, said the Constitution and the Law Commission recommended to the Standing Committee for consideration.
Review: ' counterfeit ' clause two ' overweight '
Since the commencement of legislation, how to solve the phenomenon of infringement and counterfeiting of online shopping by legal means, this department is concerned about the focus of all circles.
Prior to a review, mainly from the perspective of intellectual property protection on the "fight against the Internet" provisions, put forward that the e-commerce platform ' knowingly ' the operator of the platform infringement of intellectual property rights, should be taken by law to delete such necessary measures.
In this respect, some members of the NPC Standing Committee proposed that the above provisions are ' not enough heat ', except ' knowingly ', and ' should know '. Exiang, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, said, ' generally in the civil law, in addition to ' knowingly ', there is a very important concept, can increase the responsibility of e-commerce or sellers, that is ' should know '.
' For example, the commodity above has been marked ' high imitation ', there are very low prices, much lower than the normal brand price to lure consumers to click, e-commerce said not knowing true or false, it belongs to ' should know '. To this end, the second peer review of the e-commerce platform to strengthen the "fight against the" responsibility, the "e-business platform operators know or should know that the operator of the platform to infringe intellectual property rights, should take the removal, shielding, disconnection, termination of transactions and services necessary measures, and do not take the necessary measures, and the infringer bear joint liability.
' However, for the second review of the above ' counterfeit protection clauses ', some members of the NPC Standing Committee believe that e-commerce law should be linked to the tort liability law, the relevant provisions of consumer rights Protection Law, the e-commerce platform on the platform on the sale of fake and shoddy goods and other acts do not take timely measures,
As well as the failure of consumers to fulfill their safety and security obligations, and further clarify and refine their responsibility to consumers.
Accordingly, the three review of the ' fight against the ' clause again overweight, the new ' double joint liability ' clause.
Three-manuscript review increase provisions: e-commerce platform operators know or should know that the platform operator sales of goods or services are not in line with the protection of personal, property security requirements, or other violations of consumer rights and interests, did not take the necessary measures, according to law and the platform operators Bear joint and several responsibilities.
In addition, in relation to the consumer's life and health goods or services, e-commerce platform operators on the platform of the operator's qualification failure to fulfill the audit obligations, or consumer failure to fulfill the security obligations, causing consumer damage, and the operator of the platform in accordance with the law and joint liability.
New change: Failure to fulfill the audit obligation ' joint liability ' instead of ' supplementary liability '
However, for the three peer review of the above ' double joint liability ' clause, the four reviewers again made changes. Four reviewers retained the third review of the "counterfeit protection clauses," the first joint and several responsibilities, that is, four reviewers also stipulated: e-commerce platform operators know or should know that the platform operators to sell goods or provide services not in line with the protection of personal, property security requirements, or other violations of consumer rights and interests, did not take the necessary measures,
The operator of the Platform shall be jointly and severally liable under the law. However, for the third review of the "counterfeit protection clauses," the second joint and several responsibilities, four revision to: the relationship between consumer life and health of goods or services, e-commerce platform operators on the platform of the operator's qualification does not fulfill the audit obligations, or consumer failure to fulfill the security obligations, causing consumer damage,
In accordance with the law and the operator of the platform to undertake supplementary responsibilities.
Why should the platform not fulfill the responsibility of the audit obligation, from the ' Joint liability ' modified to ' supplementary responsibility '? The National People's Congress of the Constitution and Legal Committee of the relevant head of the report, said that some social public, e-commerce platform Enterprises, the third review of the "fight against counterfeiting clauses," the second joint and several liability, to the platform operators to impose excessive responsibility, the proposal will ' bear joint responsibility ' to ' undertake the corresponding supplementary responsibility ', and the tort
The Constitutional and Legal Committee has considered that such a revision is more reasonable and can provide adequate protection to consumers.
$500,000 to $2 million for infringement of sale of false fines
In addition to the above-mentioned ' joint liability ' to ' supplementary liability ', the four review of the ' counterfeit-fighting clause ' also made a change, the penalty ceiling from three reviewers 500,000 yuan, raised to 2 million yuan. Four review provisions, if the "e-commerce platform operator knows or should know that the operator of the platform to infringe intellectual property rights, should take the deletion, shielding, disconnection, termination of transactions and services, such as necessary measures," the operator in the platform to implement the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Act has not taken the necessary measures,
A fine of $50,000 to $500,000 and a fine of $500,000 to $2 million are imposed by the relevant intellectual property administration in order to rectify the deadline. Bill of Electrical and commercial law four trial | Infringement on sale of false fines to be proposed to $2 million