4 February 2021
The Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Food Safety Civil Dispute Cases (1)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation") on December 8, 2020. The "Interpretation" has a total of 14 articles, and stipulates the identification of the main body of food safety responsibility, the implementation of liability for compensation and related litigation procedures, which will be implemented on January 1, 2021. This article summarizes several key issues in the "Interpretation".
One is to clarify the subject of responsibility. Article 1 of the "Interpretation" stipulates that consumers who have suffered damage to food that does not meet food safety standards shall sue the food producer or business operator for compensation in accordance with the law. The producer or business operator who is sued shall be liable for compensation by the producer or business operator. The people's court shall not support the claim of exemption on the grounds that the other party bears. This provision aims to clarify the first responsibility system, so as to avoid prevarication between producers and operators. In addition, Article 4 of the "Interpretation" also clarifies the carrier's liability for compensation. According to the provisions of this article, the food provided by the carrier of public transportation to passengers does not meet the food safety standards. If the passenger claims that the carrier shall be liable for compensation as a food producer or operator in accordance with the law, the people's court shall support it; People’s courts will not support the defense of non-food producers or food businesses on the grounds that they are provided for free.
Second, clarify the responsibility of e-commerce platforms. Article 3 of the "Interpretation" stipulates that e-commerce platform operators violate the provisions of the Food Safety Law, fail to perform real-name registration, review licenses for the food operators on the platform, or fail to perform obligations such as reporting, stopping providing online trading platform services, and making consumption If the legitimate rights and interests of consumers have been harmed, and consumers claim that e-commerce platform operators and food operators on the platform bear joint and several liability, the people’s court should support it.
3. It is to clarify the responsibility of e-commerce platform self-operating and self-operating misleading. Online shopping has become a mainstream form of consumption in today's society, and some current shopping platforms not only provide platform services but also conduct self-operated businesses. Article 2 of the "Interpretation" makes clear provisions on the self-operation of e-commerce platforms. The food sold by the e-commerce platform operator by marking the self-operated business method or the food sold by the self-operating business that is not marked but the food sold by the self-operating business does not meet the food safety standards, and consumers claim that the e-commerce platform operator shall bear the responsibility as food business in accordance with the law The people’s court shall support the compensation liability of the person. Although the e-commerce platform operator does not actually carry out self-operated business, its logos are sufficient to mislead consumers to convince consumers that the e-commerce platform operator is self-operating, and consumers legally claim that the e-commerce platform operator bears the responsibility as a food operator The people's court shall support the compensation liability.
Fourth, clarify the responsibilities of imported food operators. Article 12 of the "Interpretation" stipulates that the imported food does not meet the national food safety standards of my country or the standards temporarily applied by the health administrative department of the State Council. Consumers claim that sellers, importers and other operators should bear the liability for compensation, and sellers and importers The people’s court will not support the defense that the business operators only claim that the imported food meets the food safety standards of the place of export or has passed the inspection and quarantine of my country's entry-exit inspection and quarantine agency.
Fifth, it clearly lists the circumstances identified as "knowingly" of the operator. Article 6 of the "Interpretation" lists the circumstances in which consumers claim to constitute "knowingly" in Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, including (1) foods that have passed the stated shelf life but are still sold; (2) Failure to provide the legal source of purchase of the food for sale; (3) Purchase at an obviously unreasonable low price without reasonable reasons; (4) Failure to perform the inspection obligation of purchase in accordance with the law; (5) False labeling or changing the date of food production (6) Transferring, concealing, or illegally destroying food purchase and sales records or deliberately providing false information; (7) Other circumstances that can be identified as knowingly.
Sixth, it is to clarify the issue of responsibility for non-standard pre-packaged food labels. Article 11 of the "Interpretation" stipulates that in the production and operation of pre-packaged food that does not indicate the name, address, ingredients or ingredient list of the producer, or does not clearly indicate the production date and shelf life, consumers claim that the producer or business operator shall bear punitive compensation liability , The people’s court should support it, except where laws, administrative regulations, and national food safety standards provide otherwise for labeling items.
For further information, please contact:
Lawyer Wen Jianjian, Lee Tsai & Partners
lawtec@leetsai.com
