During the "618" online concentrated promotion event, the Supreme People's Court of China released a typical civil case of online consumption on the 16th, involving the punishment of live streaming for "wrong products" and other content. The "Hou and Zhang Information Network Sales Contract Dispute Case" released this time clearly states that operators who make compensation commitments higher than the legal standards in live streaming marketing should fulfill them in accordance with the agreement. The case shows that Zhang is the operator of a certain online store. In a live streaming marketing event, the anchor staff of the store claimed that the bracelets made of rosewood black acid branch wood (a type of large leaf rosewood) were made of authentic small leaf rosewood material, and promised to be "authentic" and "compensate ten for one fake". Hou purchased one bracelet after watching the live broadcast and paid a price of 1000 yuan (RMB, the same below). Hou received the bracelet and found that it was not made of small leaf rosewood material. He sued the court and requested that Zhang be ordered to compensate ten times the price. The trial court held that the bracelet delivered by Zhang to Hou did not comply with the agreement, and the raw materials of the wooden jewelry had a significant impact on its value. Although the promise of "one false compensation for ten" is higher than the statutory compensation standard, Zhang should fulfill it, and the final judgment is to compensate Hou with 10000 yuan. The Supreme Court states that in live streaming marketing, consumers' understanding and judgment of products largely rely on the content introduced by the host. When the quality of the product does not match the promise, compensation should be made. Although the promise made by the operator is higher than the three times compensation standard stipulated by the Consumer Rights Protection Law, this promise constitutes the content of the information network sales contract between the consumer and the operator, and the operator should fulfill it in accordance with the contract. The judgment in this case is conducive to sanctioning consumer fraud, by fully protecting the rights of individual consumers and creating a favorable online consumption environment. The Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates a seven day no reason return policy. The "Hu and Han Information Network Sales Contract Dispute Case" released this time proposes that the operator should not support the unreasonable exclusion of consumers' "seven day no reason return" rights. The Supreme People's Court points out that for goods that are not suitable for return in nature, although operators can legally agree with consumers not to apply the seven day no reason return policy, the scope cannot be arbitrarily expanded. This case helps to safeguard the legal right of consumers to return goods, allowing them to "dare to consume", "be willing to consume", and "consume with confidence". The case released this time also focuses on new areas and issues in online consumption, establishing the correct direction. In the case of the personal information protection dispute between Ma and a certain company, the people's court found that the network service provider should bear tort liability for automatically selecting and agreeing to the privacy policy for users and collecting user information unrelated to the service content they provide. (New Society)