E-commerce platforms penalize merchants for false advertising of food ingredients, and the court rules that it does not constitute a breach of contract.

Beijing News (Reporter Zhang Jingshu) reported that on March 17, the Beijing Internet Court held a press conference on the trial of online consumer cases related to food and pharmaceuticals. During the conference, a case was disclosed: an e-commerce platform imposed a 100,000 yuan penalty on a seller for listing “Norwegian salmon,” which was actually rainbow trout, based on its own rules. The seller was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit. The Beijing Internet Court found that this behavior, in the perception of ordinary consumers, already constitutes “discrepancy between the actual product and promotional material.” The platform’s punishment, based on testing reports and complaint records, was in accordance with the contract terms and did not constitute a breach of contract. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

The plaintiff, a management company, operated an online store on the defendant’s e-commerce platform selling “Norwegian imported salmon.” The defendant received multiple consumer complaints 【Download Black Cat Complaint App】 indicating that the product was actually rainbow trout, not salmon. The defendant commissioned a testing agency to sample the product, and the report showed the fish was rainbow trout. According to platform rules, the defendant identified the seller’s product as mislabeling and removed the product, deducting a 100,000 yuan penalty for breach of contract. The plaintiff challenged this decision, arguing that under relevant standards, rainbow trout also falls within the category of salmon and does not constitute mislabeling, requesting the court to order the defendant to return the 100,000 yuan penalty.

After review, the Beijing Internet Court held that for ordinary consumers, “Norwegian salmon” generally refers to Atlantic salmon. Rainbow trout differs significantly in market value, taste, and quality, making it difficult for ordinary consumers to accept it as “Norwegian salmon.” The plaintiff’s sales actions had already caused numerous consumer complaints and confusion. Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted “discrepancy between the actual product and promotional material.” The defendant, based on evidence such as testing reports and complaint records, correctly identified the violation and imposed penalties according to the platform’s rules, which were consistent with the contract and within a reasonable scope. The defendant did not breach the contract, and the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims.

The judge explained that platform enterprises strengthening internal governance is of great significance for promoting the healthy and orderly development of the online consumer market. This case clarifies the contractual binding force of platform rules, recognizes the legitimacy of platform identification of violations based on testing reports and complaint records, and emphasizes that merchants should lawfully fulfill their obligation to truthfully and comprehensively inform consumers. This case has positive implications for guiding e-commerce platforms to regulate false advertising, promote honest food business practices online, protect consumers’ right to know and choose, and create a safe and trustworthy online shopping environment.

Editor: Liu Qian
Proofreader: Li Lijun