直播电商中支付诱导行为的法律规制研究
Study on Legal Regulation of Payment Inducement Behaviors in Live-Streaming E-Commerce
摘要: 直播电商作为新型消费模式激发市场活力,但支付诱导行为威胁交易公平与消费者权益,需法律规制。当前法律体系面临三大挑战:主播法律地位模糊致信息披露义务主体难认定;“虚假宣传”与“误导性陈述”边界标准粗疏,难以应对新型诱导手段;电子证据易灭失及多主体举证复杂加剧维权难。破解需构建协同规制路径:立法上细化信息披露义务,明确“虚假”、“误导”认定要件,增设直播营销条款厘清主播责任;监管上引入动态话术风险评估与分级分类监管;平台上强化全流程审核,建立先行赔付基金并扩展后悔权;司法上优化举证责任分配,引入电子数据举证倒置,探索“决策干扰度”,通过量化评估确定赔偿标准。通过法律、技术、责任的协同,平衡权益保护与商业创新,促进行业规范发展。
Abstract: Live-streaming e-commerce, as a new consumption model, stimulates market vitality, but payment inducement behaviors threaten transaction fairness and consumers’ rights and interests, requiring legal regulation. The current legal system faces three major challenges: the ambiguous legal status of anchors makes it difficult to identify the subjects of information disclosure obligations; the coarse boundary standards between “false propaganda” and “misleading statements” make it hard to address new types of inducement methods; the easy loss of electronic evidence and the complexity of evidence collection by multiple parties exacerbate the difficulty of rights protection. To address these challenges, it is necessary to construct collaborative regulatory approaches: in legislation, refine information disclosure obligations, clarify the elements for determining “false” and “misleading” content, and add provisions on live-streaming marketing to clarify anchors’ responsibilities; in supervision, introduce dynamic risk assessment of sales talk and hierarchical and classified regulation; for platforms, strengthen full-process review, establish a pre-payment compensation fund, and expand the right of withdrawal; in justice, optimize the allocation of the burden of proof, introduce the inversion of proof for electronic data, explore the “degree of decision-making interference”, and determine compensation standards through quantitative assessment. Through the collaboration of law, technology, and responsibility, we can balance rights protection and commercial innovation and promote the standardized development of the industry.
文章引用:贝永动. 直播电商中支付诱导行为的法律规制研究[J]. 电子商务评论, 2025, 14(6): 3220-3227. https://doi.org/10.12677/ecl.2025.1462106

参考文献

[1] 网经社. 2023年度中国直播电商市场数据报告[EB/OL].
https://www.100ec.cn/zt/2023zbdsscbg/, 2025-04-27.
[2] 中国消费者协会. 2023年全国消协组织受理投诉情况分析[EB/OL].
https://www.cqn.com.cn/ms/content/2024-02/01/content_9025685.htm, 2025-04-27.
[3] 孙艳丽, 黄玉芬. 人工智能背景下电商直播的法律规制路径分析[J]. 北京工业职业技术学院学报, 2025, 24(2): 91-94.
[4] 赵琛琛. 洪巧缘. 电商平台未向消费者披露交易相对方时可以认定平台为合同相对方——蔡某诉上海某文化传播股份有限公司、上海某信息科技有限公司网络服务合同纠纷案[C]//《上海法学研究》集刊2022年第4卷——上海市法学会互联网司法研究会文集. 上海: 上海市法学会, 2022: 2.
[5] 任峻慧, 钟清华, 廖欣悦, 等. 直播情境下计划外购买诱导因素对再消费意愿的影响研究[J]. 现代商业, 2023(9): 42-46.
[6] 刘科, 黄博琛. 电商直播带货行为主体的法律责任及规制逻辑[J]. 江汉论坛, 2023(10): 139-144.
[7] 沈宝钢. 直播带货商业模式探析及其规范化发展[J]. 理论月刊, 2020(10): 59-66.
[8] 张文艳. 现代互联网背景下电商法律规则及适用性探析——评《互联网法律实务指南》[J]. 中国科技论文, 2023, 18(5): 582.
[9] 何弘基, 范思睿, 郑承华. 网络直播带货中消费者的法律风险防范[J]. 上海商业, 2024(2): 19-21.
[10] 王鹏飞. 电商平台算法歧视法律救济的困境与出路[J]. 科学决策, 2023(5): 213-223.