网络直播消费纠纷中直播间运营者的责任认定
Determination of Liability of Live-Streaming Operators in Live-Streaming Consumer Disputes
摘要: 互联网+新零售时代,搭建了网络直播这一新型消费场景,场内消费繁荣,场外纠纷频发,根据传统线下消费场景制定的买卖合同相关法律规定及理论一时已难以满足这一新型消费纠纷主体多样性、场景虚拟性、交易高频性、合意时效性等特征。谁对消费者负责?是主播?是直播间运营者?还是商品经营者?直播间运营者究竟是销售商还是广告商?据此《最高人民法院关于审理网络消费纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定(一)》(征求意见稿)第十五条提供了两个认定直播间运营者责任的方案,一是由直播间运营者承担商品销售责任,自证清白;二是以直播间运营者是否提供商品链接供消费者直接点击购买为区分标志,提供商品购买链接的直播间运营者承担商品销售责任,反之承担广告责任。笔者以法律适用、消费者权益保护、直播业发展为视角综合考量,方案二的证明标准更为明确、更便于法律适用,不仅符合保护消费者的立法价值取向,也符合直播行业的商业现状和行业发展需要。
Abstract: The Internet + new retail era has built a new type of consumer scene of webcasting, with prosperous onsite consumption and frequent offsite disputes. The legal provisions and theories related to the sale and purchase contract formulated according to the traditional offline consumption scene have been difficult to meet the characteristics of this new type of consumer dispute such as subject diversity, scene virtualization, high frequency of transaction, and consensual timeliness. Who is responsible for consumers? Is it the anchor? Is it the operator of the live broadcast room? Or is it the operator of the product? Is the operator of the live broadcast room a seller or an advertiser? Accordingly, Article 15 of the “Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Trial of Online Consumer Disputes (I)” (draft for public comment) provides two options for determining the liability of live-streaming operators: one is for the live-streaming operator to assume responsibility for the sale of goods and to prove its own innocence; the other is to distinguish whether the live-streaming operator provides links to goods for consumers to click directly to purchase, and to provide links to purchase goods. The operator of the live broadcast room will be responsible for the sale of goods and vice versa for advertising. The author to the application of the law, consumer protection, live industry development as a comprehensive perspective, the proof of the second standard is more clear, more convenient for legal application, not only in line with the protection of consumer legislative value orientation, but also in line with the live industry's business status and industry development needs.
文章引用:钱佩文, 李艳. 网络直播消费纠纷中直播间运营者的责任认定[J]. 争议解决, 2022, 8(1): 178-185. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2022.81025

参考文献

[1] 新京报. 北京互联网法院:网购合同纠纷占网络消费纠纷八成以上[EB/OL].
https://www.bjnews.com.cn/detail/158390985214345.html, 2022-03-06.
[2] 中国消费者协会. 2021年全国消协组织受理投诉情况分析[EB/OL].
https://www.cca.org.cn/zxsd/detail/30345.html, 2022-03-06.
[3] [日]小林秀之. 证据法[M]. 东京: 弘文堂, 1996: 66.
[4] 江伟. 民事诉讼法(第四版) [M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2013: 225.
[5] 李浩. 民事诉讼法学(第二版) [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2014: 235.
[6] 张卫平. 民事诉讼法(第三版) [M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2015: 188.
[7] 上海市第一中级人民法院(2015)沪一中民一(民)终字第992号民事判决书[Z].
[8] [日]中岛弘道. 举证责任研究[M]. 东京: 有斐阁, 1949: 90.
[9] 李浩. 民事诉讼证明标准的再思考[J]. 法商研究, 1999(5): 19-21.
[10] 毕玉谦. 试论民事诉讼证明上的盖然性规则[J]. 法学评论, 2000(4): 40-49.
[11] [美]理查德•A•波斯纳. 证据法的经济分析[M]. 徐昕, 徐昀, 译. 北京: 中国法制出版社, 2001: 93.
[12] [德]汉斯•普维庭. 现代证明责任问题[M]. 吴越, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2000: 108.
[13] [日]兼子一等. 条解民事诉讼法[M]. 东京: 弘文堂, 1986: 928.
[14] 辞海[M]. 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 1980: 1280.
[15] 张卫平. 证明标准建构的乌托邦[J]. 法学研究, 2003, 25(4): 60-69.
[16] 中国青年网. 商务部:一季度电商直播超400万场[EB/OL].
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1664764885139524775&wfr=spider&for=pc, 2022-03-06.
[17] 中国消费者协会. 直播电商购物消费者满意度在线调查报告[EB/OL].
https://www.cca.org.cn/jmxf/detail/29533.html, 2022-03-06.
[18] 薛叶明与北京京东叁佰陆拾度电子商务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案(2012)浦民一(民)初字第30521号[Z].
[19] 毕马威, 阿里研究院. 迈向万亿市场的直播电商[EB/OL].
http://www.aliresearch.com/ch/information/informationdetails?articleCode=124024843019620352&type=%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB, 2022-03-06.
[20] 李友根. 从平等走向倾斜——对消费者保护法的回顾与展望[J]. 法学论坛2008, 23(3): 20-25.