近日,江蘇省海門(mén)市人民法院受理了一起關(guān)于電商平臺(tái)訴網(wǎng)絡(luò)差評(píng)師侵權(quán)案件。阿里巴巴以侵權(quán)為由起訴3名利用惡意差評(píng)敲詐商家的“差評(píng)師”,請(qǐng)求法院判令賠償1元,并在淘寶網(wǎng)主頁(yè)向商家致歉。
ecently, the People's Court of Haimen City, Jiangsu Province, accepted a case of infringement on the electronic commerce platform suing network judges. Alibaba sued three "bad judges" who blackmailed merchants using malicious disparities for infringement, asked the court to award a $1 compensation and apologized to the merchants on Taobao's home page.
對(duì)于電商平臺(tái)而言，不僅要不斷提升消費(fèi)者評(píng)價(jià)機(jī)制的有效性與科學(xué)性。同時(shí)，對(duì)于惡意差評(píng)師更須零容忍。
For the electronic business platform, we should not only enhance the effectiveness and scientificity of the consumer evaluation mechanism. At the same time, there is more tolerance for malicious bad judges.
對(duì)于伴隨電子商務(wù)發(fā)展滋生出來(lái)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)差評(píng)師，電商平臺(tái)不能袖手旁觀。有記者了解到，江蘇省海門(mén)市人民法院近日受理了一起關(guān)于電商平臺(tái)訴網(wǎng)絡(luò)差評(píng)師侵權(quán)的案件，阿里巴巴以侵權(quán)為由起訴三名利用惡意差評(píng)敲詐商家的差評(píng)師，請(qǐng)求法院判令其賠償1元，并在淘寶網(wǎng)主頁(yè)向商家致歉。
The e-commerce platform can not stand idly by for the network commenter who has been brought along with the development of e-commerce. A reporter learned that the People's Court of Haimen City, Jiangsu Province, recently accepted a case concerning electronic commerce platform suing network bad judges for infringement. Alibaba sued three bad judges who blackmailed merchants by malicious bad judgement for infringement. The court ordered them to pay 1 yuan in compensation and apologized to the merchants on the home page of Taobao.com.
消費(fèi)者評(píng)價(jià)機(jī)制，無(wú)論對(duì)于入駐商家、消費(fèi)者，還是電商平臺(tái)，都是一件有積極意義的事情。尤其是，商家極其看重消費(fèi)者的評(píng)價(jià)。中肯的消費(fèi)評(píng)價(jià)，不僅代表了消費(fèi)者的消費(fèi)體驗(yàn)，也有助于商家提升服務(wù)質(zhì)量。不過(guò)，惡意差評(píng)師，其本真的目的并不是為了消費(fèi)維權(quán)，而是借助“惡評(píng)”對(duì)商家直接或間接進(jìn)行敲詐勒索。
Consumer evaluation mechanism, whether for entrants, consumers, or e-commerce platform, is a positive thing. In particular, businesses value consumers very much. Meaningful consumption evaluation not only represents the consumer experience, but also helps businesses to improve the quality of service. However, malicious bad judges, its true purpose is not to protect consumer rights, but to use "bad comments" on merchants directly or indirectly extortion.
海門(mén)這件案件中的三名惡意差評(píng)師是這樣實(shí)施敲詐的：A挑選店鋪和商品，然后將鏈接發(fā)給B；B購(gòu)買(mǎi)收貨后直接給差評(píng)，待商家聯(lián)系后，B就將A的聯(lián)系方式推給商家；此后，A與商家討價(jià)還價(jià)，要求商家要么“花錢(qián)消災(zāi)”要么“我讓更多的人來(lái)給你差評(píng)”，B見(jiàn)有利可圖，便拉著C一起做。三人共敲詐勒索了5位商家，每筆600至8800元不等，共計(jì)2萬(wàn)多元。
In the case of Haimen, three malicious bad judges blackmailed: A picked stores and merchandise, and then sent the link to B; B bought and received goods directly to the bad judgement, after the merchant contacted, B pushed A's contact to the merchant; after that, A bargained with the merchant, asking the merchant to either "spend money to eliminate disaster" or "I". "Let more people give you a bad review". B sees a lucrative job and pulls C together. Three people extorted 5 merchants, ranging from 600 to 8800 yuan each, totaling more than 20 thousand yuan.
在法院以敲詐勒索罪對(duì)三名差評(píng)師判處刑罰的基礎(chǔ)上，電商平臺(tái)又拿起法律之劍，對(duì)此三名惡意差評(píng)師進(jìn)行起訴。據(jù)悉，此案系阿里巴巴首次起訴差評(píng)師。誠(chéng)如阿里巴巴集團(tuán)高級(jí)法務(wù)專(zhuān)家所言，打1元官司并非為賠償，而是警示差評(píng)師，這是一種違法行為。的確如此，賠償1元，并在淘寶網(wǎng)主頁(yè)向廣大商家致歉訴訟請(qǐng)求，必然能夠起到震懾作用。
After the court sentenced three bad judges for extortion, the e-commerce platform took up the sword of law and prosecuted the three bad judges. It is reported that this case is the first time that the Alibaba has prosecuted the division. As Alibaba Group's senior legal experts said, a $1 lawsuit is not for compensation, but to warn the judges, which is an illegal act. Indeed, compensation of 1 yuan, and in Taobao home page to apologize to the majority of merchants litigation claims, will certainly play a deterrent role.
其實(shí)，對(duì)于惡意差評(píng)行為并不難識(shí)別，指買(mǎi)家、同行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者等評(píng)價(jià)人以給予中、差評(píng)的方式向網(wǎng)店謀取財(cái)物或其他不當(dāng)利益的行為。而這些人，也正是由于摸準(zhǔn)了網(wǎng)店經(jīng)營(yíng)者的“軟肋”，怕遭到差評(píng)、多一事不如少一事，以及花錢(qián)買(mǎi)平安的心理，而商家的妥協(xié)與懦弱，也就縱容了惡意差評(píng)師的存在。
In fact, it is not difficult to identify malicious bad reviews, referring to buyers, competitors and other evaluators to give in, bad reviews from online stores for property or other improper interests. And these people, it is precisely because of the "soft ribs" of the operators of online stores, afraid of being criticized, more than less, and spend money to buy peace of mind, and the compromise and cowardice of the merchants, also condoned the existence of malicious bad judges.
對(duì)于電商平臺(tái)而言，不僅要不斷提升消費(fèi)者評(píng)價(jià)機(jī)制的有效性與科學(xué)性。同時(shí)，對(duì)于惡意差評(píng)師更須零容忍。比如，阿里巴巴方面，近年來(lái)電商平臺(tái)除了完善投訴舉報(bào)機(jī)制，升級(jí)評(píng)價(jià)規(guī)則，協(xié)助配合執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)打擊外，通過(guò)訴訟手段予以圍剿就是積極的嘗試。也唯有借助技術(shù)防范和法律手段，才會(huì)有效打擊惡意差評(píng)師的囂張氣焰。
For the electronic business platform, we should not only enhance the effectiveness and scientificity of the consumer evaluation mechanism. At the same time, there is more tolerance for malicious bad judges. For example, Alibaba, in recent years, e-commerce platform in addition to improving the complaint reporting mechanism, upgrade the evaluation rules, and help with law enforcement agencies to combat, through litigation means to encircle and suppress is a positive attempt. Only by means of technical prevention and legal means will we effectively crack down on the arrogance of malicious judges.
轉(zhuǎn)自物流時(shí)代周刊
http://www.zhipf.com
