The Blue Moon Honorary Case Wang Hai Appealed To &Nbsp; It Called The Decision To Suppress Consumer Supervision.

Because of the fact that micro-blog's false statement is a violation of the blue moon, the famous fake Wang Hai was recently apologized and compensated 100 thousand yuan. Whether the blue moon products have been proved safe and harmless in the judgment? How do Wang Haihui think about this decision and how to deal with it? "The market guide" recently interviewed Wang Hai on the line.

"The first instance decision is right. consumption The suppression of the exercise of supervisory power is a connivance to ignoring the consumer's right to know and to choose. This decision will have a negative and adverse impact on safe consumption. "The telephone guide," the Wang Hai guide newspaper reporter said, "such a decision is simply unconvincing. He has appealed the case.

Micro-blog's alleged infringement

The widespread public concern about the right of reputation began with Wang Hai's statement on micro-blog. Guangzhou blue moon Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as blue moon company) has said before the prosecution that since June 20, 2011, the defendant Wang Hai has made false statements on micro-blog's brightening and whitening liquid detergent through continuous interviews, and commented and attacked the product in a media interview. Since these remarks were constantly quoted, reprinted and commented by other media, the incident continued to ferment, which caused immeasurable damage to the reputation of enterprises. Accordingly, the blue moon company filed an appeal to the court to order the defendant to immediately stop the infringement and apologize. At the same time, he also raised 3 million yuan. A huge sum Claim demage.

After hearing the case for 5 months, the people's Court of Whampoa District of Guangzhou held that the defendant Wang Hai, who was supported by the conclusions of scientific experiments and the conclusions of scientific argumentation, issued a statement that misled the public and incited consumers to boycott products, which constituted a slander. These false statements, if not clarified in time, are based on the high degree of social concern of the defendant in the fight against counterfeiting, which is enough to mislead the public that the plaintiff's products are not in conformity with the standards and requirements for the protection of human health and personal safety, which leads to the reduction of the plaintiff's reputation, prestige and social appraisal, thus causing the survival of the plaintiff's enterprises to be in crisis.

According to the court found that the plaintiff blue moon company in order to eliminate the adverse effects caused by the false statements made by the defendant, has commissioned the advertising company in the majority of the 39 newspapers across the country, most of the front page or A stack edition of the publicity articles, and for advertising companies to pay $3 million. The court of Whampoa pointed out that the impact of the statements made by the defendant in his micro-blog was further expanded after consideration of the media reports and reprints. Therefore, it is considered that the defendant shall bear 100 thousand yuan as the cost to eliminate the impact.

In December 15, 2011, the court of first instance of Whampoa decided that the defendant, Wang Hai, compensated the above expenses, and decided that he immediately stopped giving false statements, and deleted all his false statements on micro-blog, and apologized to blue moon company.

Wang Hai refused to appeal.

"I feel quite surprised that such a decision, I have never seen so many years of fake experience, I have encountered two cases of infringement of reputation before, and two companies claim 10 million respectively, but at last the enterprises have withdrawn their charges." When interviewed by reporters in the "market Herald", Wang Hai felt quite sorry. He thought that the first instance judgment of blue moon Liang case could not withstand scrutiny. At the end of December 2011, Wang Hai appealed against the original judgment and dismissed the claim.

In the appeal form, Wang Hai believed that the facts of the judgment were not clear and the evidence was insufficient. The court of first instance deviated from the focus and focus of the case. It focused on the fact that it was not related to the case, such as changing the concept, identifying the product that the appellant produced was a qualified product, which had nothing to do with the case.

Wang Hai pointed out that for his earlier publication speech The main contents of the court of first instance review are two: 1.. According to the classification table of occupational hazards, issued by the State Administration of work safety, the fluorescent whitening agent is proposed as a chemical poison; 2. he quoted the contents of life daily and people's daily as the source of carcinogenic substances. However, the court found that its statement was false, but there was no evidence to support it.

"The first instance court found that the classification of occupational disease hazard factors listed fluorescent brighteners as chemical poisons. It is the possibility that workers may be affected by occupational hazards during the production process of the raw material, which is not applicable to the management of the terminal products of the raw material. The above explanation is completely divorced from the facts that should be identified in the case, and the identification of whether the substance is a chemical poison will be spanformed into the formulation of the classification table of occupational hazards. Wang Hai believes that the nature of a chemical product depends on the internal chemical structure of the product, which has nothing to do with the scope of use and environment of the product. Therefore, fluorescent whitening agents can not change the nature of the chemical poisons in the production process or in the process of using them as chemical toxicants.

"For the contents of" daily life "and" people's Daily ", the court of first instance found that the above two articles were not standard or academic discussions, but the media's life advice for fluorescent whitening agents. Therefore, the two article can not be the legal basis for supporting the defendant's speech. The court's statement is totally unreasonable. The fluorescent whitening agent is a carcinogenic substance. It is not my qualitative analysis. It is my quotation and explanation for the contents of the two articles. I do not need to provide evidence support for the reference and interpretation. I only need to specify the source of the reference. Wang Hai believes that, in the first step, even if he uses two articles as the basis for his speeches, the court of first instance should not deny that the two articles can be used as a legitimate reason for comments or comments.

Refers to the decision to suppress supervision power.

For the Whampoa court's decision, Wang Hai even believes that it will have a negative impact on the current consumer safety.

Wang Hai said, according to the consumer law, consumers are right. Management The products of producers and producers enjoy the right to supervise and criticize. This is the basic right granted by law, and supervision is conducive to promoting the progress of consumer safety in the whole society. His comments on blue moon products are not only to exercise the basic rights granted by the law, but also to urge enterprises to identify fluorescent whitening agents on their products to protect consumers' right to know and to choose.

According to the introduction, Mcglaughlin, UNIQLO, Muji and other brands of clothing, are clearly required for light colored clothes, please do not use detergent containing fluorescent whitening agents. Japanese Lion King's LION Japanese lion TOP indoor dry washing powder instructions clearly identify: "silk type clothing, please use detergent without fluorescent brighteners". The one spoonful fungus super concentrated detergent powder produced by Limited by Share Ltd (Taiwan) produces clear logo: "white, beige cotton linen fabric without whitening, please use a one spoonful laundry detergent series without whitening agent (FWA) or a spoonful of bright colored ultra concentrated detergent powder".

Wang Hai believes that the blue moon company should identify fluorescent brighteners on its products, not only the actual needs of consumers in the process of protecting clothing, but also the clear requirements of China's "quality law". However, enterprises not only failed to identify, but added fluorescent whitening agents to bright white and brightening technology, which made consumers most likely to use the product without knowing it and cause some clothing damage.

"The court should not impose harsh demands on ordinary consumers in exercising their supervisory power," Wang Hai told the market guide. In the case of his comments, which could provide relevant provisions of the state and provide references to the quotes, the court should no longer require consumers to have "professional knowledge and relevant qualifications". The court of first instance made such judgments, which obviously suppressed the exercise of supervisory power by consumers, and conniving at the producers' disregard of consumers' right to know and choice. security Consumption has negative and adverse effects.

The second instance of the blue moon reputation case will be judged by the intermediate court of Guangzhou. This newspaper will continue to pay attention to it.