Purchasing Diet Food Containing Toxic Ingredients Warrants Tenfold Compensation - Typical Consumer Protection Case Released

CCTV News: According to the Supreme People’s Court, today (March 15) is International Consumer Rights Day. The Supreme People’s Court released typical cases of consumer rights protection, effectively using high-quality judicial practices to safeguard consumers’ legal rights and interests, guide businesses to operate honestly and legally, and continuously enhance the public’s sense of gain, happiness, and security.

The Supreme People’s Court always regards creating a safe, fair, and trustworthy legal environment for consumption as an important responsibility. It actively adapts to new consumer expectations and the evolving situation of rights protection, focusing on areas such as online shopping, emerging fields of consumption, and food and drug safety. Judicial rules are issued promptly to promote standardized development. The relevant cases highlight the following key areas:

1. Strict punishment for food safety violations. Food consumption is fundamental. Food safety concerns people’s health and life safety. The courts attach great importance to food safety, fully implementing the “Four Strictest” requirements, and strive to protect the public’s “safety on the tip of the tongue” through the rule of law. A typical case released by the Supreme Court shows that a business added toxic and harmful ingredients to weight-loss foods in pursuit of illegal profits, seriously threatening consumers’ health. The court supported the consumer’s claim for ten times the compensation, demonstrating zero tolerance for food safety violations and effectively deterring illegal acts.

Case 1: Weight-loss food containing prohibited additives; business owner sentenced to tenfold compensation

Basic facts:

Yu purchased a weight-loss product from Zhang’s online shop, paying over 2,000 yuan. The product’s promotional image listed the manufacturer as a certain health supplement company. After receiving the product, Yu discovered that the company had its business license revoked over ten years ago and reported this to the police. Zhang was criminally prosecuted for producing and selling toxic and harmful food (handled separately). Expert testing showed the product contained a large amount of sibutramine, a substance prohibited in food by national regulations.

Judgment:

The court held that according to Article 148, Paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Law of China, operators who knowingly sell food that does not meet safety standards can be required to pay ten times the price as compensation. Zhang failed to fulfill inspection obligations, sold toxic and harmful food, and allowed potential harm to consumers, which constitutes knowingly selling unsafe food. Although Zhang’s online shop listed the manufacturer as a certain health supplement company, that company’s license had been revoked over ten years ago, and the product was found to contain sibutramine, a banned additive. The court supported Yu’s claim for ten times the purchase price as punitive damages. The final judgment ordered Zhang to pay Yu more than 20,000 yuan in punitive damages.

This typical case also focuses on prominent issues in emerging fields. As living standards improve, the public increasingly values convenience and emotional satisfaction, leading to the popularity of online booking, “appearance economy,” and “pet economy.” For example, booking hotel rooms well in advance and then canceling due to travel disruptions—are the strict cancellation conditions reasonable?

Case 2: Consumer’s late cancellation of hotel booking refused; court orders refund

Basic facts:

Lu booked a three-day, two-night stay at a hotel during the Golden Week of October via an online travel platform, paying 1,281 yuan in full. The booking page stated, “Cannot cancel within 30 minutes of successful booking; cancellations require full prepayment.” Lu was unable to get train tickets to the destination and applied for cancellation two hours after booking. The hotel refused to refund, citing the late cancellation. Lu sued, requesting a refund of 1,281 yuan.

Judgment:

The court held that according to Articles 496 and 497 of the Civil Code, the party providing standard terms must follow the principle of fairness when defining rights and obligations. Unreasonable burdens on the other party are invalid. The hotel’s online booking and fee collection formed a service contract. Although the order indicated that cancellations within 30 minutes were not allowed, Lu’s cancellation occurred two hours after booking, with 14 days remaining before check-in. The hotel had sufficient time and market conditions to resell the room. Enforcing the clause strictly would unfairly burden the consumer and violate fairness. The court considered the hotel’s actual loss, the impact on resale, and the fault of both parties, and reasonably allocated responsibility. The court ordered the hotel to refund Lu 1,000 yuan.

The pet economy is booming, but some operators fabricate pet breeds to deceive consumers. A typical case released by the Supreme Court shows that operators provided false breed certificates and fabricated breed information, ultimately leading the court to order the operator to pay punitive damages.

Case 3: Fake purebred dog certificate; court orders refund and triple damages

Basic facts:

Gao contacted a pet company and confirmed the purchase of a healthy purebred Pomeranian, requiring a breed certificate. Gao paid over 8,000 yuan. Four days after receiving the dog, Gao took it to a veterinary hospital and found issues such as patellar dislocation, malocclusion, and tear duct obstruction. The breed certificate provided by the pet company was forged, and no other evidence proved the dog was a purebred Pomeranian. Gao sued, requesting a refund and three times the purchase price as punitive damages.

Judgment:

The court held that according to Article 20 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, operators must provide truthful information about product quality and performance, avoiding false or misleading advertising. The breed of a pet significantly affects its market value, and the breed certificate is an important proof of authenticity. The pet company promised to sell a purebred, healthy Pomeranian with a certificate, but the certificate was fake, and no other evidence proved the dog’s breed. Gao found health issues shortly after purchase, which was inconsistent with the company’s promises. The company’s false breed claims constituted fraud. The court ordered the company to refund Gao’s over 8,000 yuan and pay three times that amount in damages, totaling more than 20,000 yuan.

(Edited by: Wen Jing)