食品领域职业打假行为的司法认定

Judicial Determination of Professional Anti Counterfeiting in the Food Field

摘要: 2017年5月最高人民法院出台的对十二届全国人大五次会议的答复明确表示在除购买食品、药品之外的情形，逐步限制职业打假者的牟利性打假行为，但是在具体的司法实务中，法院在食品领域还是会有不同的做法。惩罚性赔偿的适用前提是消费者的消费行为，而职业打假者的牟利性打假行为与生活消费行为不同，因此需要对职业打假行为做出明确的司法认定。本文通过对130份司法案例的研究，分析法院对职业打假者身份认定的裁判路径，并对此提出自己的看法。实践中，职业打假者往往是以食品的标签存在瑕疵为由主张惩罚性赔偿，因此在裁判之前首先须明确被诉食品是否不符合食品安全标准，是否符合豁免条件。而对于职业打假行为可以通过大量购买与牟利性行为这两个角度进行认定，在认定过程中要注重个案的研究。对于食品领域职业打假行为的司法认定既要保护食品市场的活力，又要对食品违法行为做出遏制。

Abstract: In May 2017, the Supreme People’s Court issued a reply to the fifth session of the 12th National People’s Congress, which clearly stated that in addition to purchasing food and medicine, it gradually restricted the profit-making anti-counterfeiting behavior of professional anti-counterfeiters, but in the specific judicial practice, the court will have different practices in the field of food. The premise of punitive damages is consumers’ consumption behavior, while the profit-making behavior of the professional cracker is different from the life consumption behavior, so it is necessary to make a clear judicial determination of the professional cracker. Through the study of 130 judicial cases, the article mainly analyzes the court’s path of judgment on the determination of professional anti counterfeiters, and puts forward my own views. In practice, professional counterfeiters often claim punitive compensation on the basis of defective food labels. Therefore, before the judgment, it is necessary to make clear whether the sued food does not meet the food safety standards and whether it meets the exemption conditions. The professional anti-counterfeiting behavior can be identified from the two perspectives of large-scale purchase and profit-making behavior. For the judicial determination of professional anti-counterfeiting in the field of food, we should not only protect the vitality of the food market, but also curb the illegal acts of food.