论电商平台经营者安全保障义务边界与“相应责任”的司法实现

On the Boundary of Safety Guarantees Obligation of E-Commerce Platforms Operators and the Judicial Realization of “Corresponding Liabilities”

摘要: 数字经济背景下，电商平台由信息中介转型为资源配置核心枢纽，其“守门人”地位在重塑商业生态之际，亦衍生新型安全风险。平台内经营者提供缺陷商品或服务致害、数据泄露等问题频发，凸显安全保障义务制度之关键性。《电子商务法》虽界定平台经营者权利义务，其第38条第1款明定连带责任，然第2款涉及资质审核与安全保障义务时，仅笼统规定“相应责任”，其内涵、归责原则及举证方式均未明晰。尽管《电子商务法》第38条与《民法典》第1198条确立了平台安全保障义务及“相应责任”，然义务边界模糊与责任形态不明，引致司法实践分歧。本文主张：平台义务范围应动态结合其控制能力、获益程度及风险性质综合判定；“相应责任”的司法适用须突破单一模式藩篱，构建以过错程度和原因力为核心的阶梯式责任体系。通过类型化规则平衡消费者权益保护、平台创新激励与公共利益，为数字市场治理提供法治保障。

Abstract: Under the background of the digital economy, E-commerce Platforms are transformed from Information intermediaries to the core hub of resource allocation, and its “gatekeeper” status has also derived new security risks while reshaping the commercial ecology. Problems such as defective commodities or services provided by operators within the platform causing harm and data leakage occur frequently, highlighting the criticality of the security Guarantees Obligation system. Although the “E-commerce Law” defines the Rights and Obligations of platform operators, Article 38, paragraph 1 thereof clearly stipulates joint and several Liability, but paragraph 2 only vaguely stipulates “Corresponding Liabilities” when it comes to qualification verification and security Guarantees Obligations, and its connotation, attribution principle, and method of proof are not clear. Although Article 38 of the “E-commerce Law” and Article 1198 of the “Civil Code” have established the platform security Guarantees Obligations and “Corresponding Liabilities”, the vague Obligation boundary and the unclear form of Liability have led to divergences in judicial practice. This paper argues that: the scope of platform obligation shall be dynamically determined by comprehensively considering its control ability, degree of benefit, and nature of risk; the judicial application of “Corresponding Liabilities” must break through the single-mode barrier and construct a tiered liability system with the degree of fault and causality as the core. Through typified rules, the protection of consumer rights and interests, platform innovation incentives, and public interests are balanced, providing legal safeguards for digital market governance.