The core reading of the "Measures for Handling Complaints and Reports in Market Supervision and Administration (Draft for Soliciting Opinions)" focuses on core issues such as "who can complain, what to complain about, and how to complain", aiming to further clarify the legislative meaning of the Consumer Rights Protection Law on the identity of "consumers", define the qualification for safeguarding rights from the institutional source, and prevent professional claims and malicious complaints from occupying public resources. With the rapid development of the digital economy and profound changes in consumption patterns, China's consumer rights protection activities have shown a trend of complexity and diversification, and the traditional complaint and reporting system has gradually shown insufficient adaptability. The legitimate demands of consumers have not been fully satisfied through existing mechanisms, and at the same time, some issues of abuse, complaints, and reports are becoming increasingly prominent. In this context, the State Administration for Market Regulation recently organized the revision of the "Interim Measures for Handling Complaints and Reports in Market Supervision and Administration" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Measures"), forming the "Draft Measures for Handling Complaints and Reports in Market Supervision and Administration (hereinafter referred to as the" Draft for Soliciting Opinions ")", and publicly soliciting opinions from the society. This move reflects the mature transformation of China's market supervision system towards refined governance and standardization. Since the implementation of the Interim Measures for Defining Rights Protection Qualifications from the Source of the System on January 1, 2020, it has played an important role in improving the quality and efficiency of complaint and report handling, and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. However, in practice, there have also been some new situations and problems, such as the large number and rapid growth of complaints in the field of e-commerce, as well as many jurisdictional disputes; The number of consumer disputes imported through channels such as letters and visits continues to grow, and the applicable procedures vary; The digital reform and diversified resolution of complaints and reports in various regions have been accelerated. Therefore, it is necessary for market regulatory authorities to improve supporting systems and further enhance the quality and efficiency of handling complaints and reports. More importantly, the Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which will come into effect on July 1, 2024, have made a series of new provisions on complaints and reports. As a subordinate law of the Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, the Interim Measures need to fully implement the provisions of the higher-level law and refine and clarify them according to the actual work of the market supervision department. The reporter noticed that the draft for soliciting opinions has put in a lot of effort to implement and refine the provisions of the Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. In terms of improving the complaint handling process, the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" specifies that the materials that should be provided when consumers file complaints should be changed from the complainant's name to their real identity information, and the specific facts should be changed to specific factual basis; At the same time, when the market supervision department refuses to accept complaints, it shall inform the complainant of the reasons for the refusal and other ways to resolve disputes; When the new complainant and the respondent cannot reach a consensus through negotiation, the market supervision department may designate appraisal and testing institutions; The addition of entrusted mediation requires the consent of both the complainant and the respondent; Change the mediation period from 45 working days from the date of acceptance to 60 natural days. In terms of regulating the behavior of complaints and reports, the draft for soliciting opinions has added overall requirements, clarifying that complaints and reports should comply with laws, regulations, and relevant provisions, and should not be used to seek improper benefits, infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of operators, or disrupt the order of the market economy; New illegal responsibilities shall be added, and it shall be clarified that if a complaint or informant obtains compensation from a business operator or extorts a business operator, the market supervision department shall transfer the case to the public security organs for handling in accordance with the Public Security Administration Punishment Law and other regulations. It is not difficult to see from the above provisions that the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" closely focuses on core issues such as "who can complain, what to complain about, and how to complain", aiming to further clarify the legislative meaning of the Consumer Rights Protection Law on the identity of "consumers", define the qualification for safeguarding rights from the institutional source, and prevent professional claims and malicious complaints from occupying public resources. According to the relevant provisions of the Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the purchase of goods and services for daily consumption needs is a necessary prerequisite for complaint acceptance. The draft for soliciting opinions stipulates that if a complaint falls under any of the following circumstances, the market supervision and management department shall not accept it: including situations where the consumer does not purchase or use goods or services for daily consumption needs, or where it cannot be proven that there is a consumer rights dispute with the respondent. The draft for soliciting opinions lists five situations of "non living consumption needs" for market supervision departments to make comprehensive judgments: the quantity, frequency, and frequency of purchasing goods or receiving services clearly do not meet the shelf life of the goods or the usual consumption habits of consumers; Knowingly purchasing goods or receiving services despite complaints about them; The same complainant makes a large number of complaints against the same operator in a short period of time, or different complainants maliciously collude to make separate complaints against the same operator after consuming separately; Being employed by others or using someone else's name to file a complaint; Other situations that do not fall under the category of purchasing or using goods or receiving services for daily consumption needs. At the same time, the draft for soliciting opinions also authorizes provincial and municipal market supervision departments to refine these measures. Regarding this, the relevant person in charge of the State Administration for Market Regulation introduced that "this clause will not raise the threshold for consumer rights protection, and cannot be simply understood as' if you buy too much, you cannot file a complaint '. It is not a one size fits all exclusion of the complaint rights of specific groups, but a return to the origin of the system. Civil and commercial disputes that are not necessary for daily consumption can be resolved through arbitration and litigation." Zhang Yanfang, a professor at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, analyzed and pointed out that the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" sets a comprehensive judgment situation for "non daily consumption needs", which has clear direction and practical relevance in institutional design. This mechanism shifts the traditional "identity judgment" to "behavior recognition", aiming to improve the efficiency of institutional operation, strengthen the ability to identify malicious abuse behavior, and ensure effective handling space for genuine rights protection demands while safeguarding the rights of normal consumers. It should be emphasized that in order to help consumers accurately understand the connotation and institutional positioning of "non life consumption needs", the essence of the provisions in the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" is not to restrict multiple complaints, joint complaints, or small-scale rights protection, but to emphasize that complaint behavior should be based on daily life needs and reflect genuine and well intentioned rights protection motivations. Consumers who encounter quality issues, improper service, false advertising, and other situations in their daily consumption, even if they have multiple instances of rights protection and concentrated expression, still fall within the scope of institutional protection. The system will not simply reject complaints based on the number of complaints and other factors. This clause focuses on professional claims and malicious rights protection behaviors that are profit driven, systematically operated, and repeatedly "knowingly buy", which fundamentally deviate from the original intention of the consumer rights protection system. Setting such boundaries is to prevent the abuse of the system and disrupt market order, rather than weakening the channels for ordinary consumers to protect their rights. The draft for soliciting opinions has established a relatively systematic procedural guarantee mechanism in the complaint handling process to promote the standardization and effectiveness of rights protection handling, reflecting the shift from "passive acceptance" to "active governance". Through institutional arrangements such as online resolution mechanisms and mediation priority mechanisms, a procedural loop has been formed from entry optimization to dispute resolution, aiming to improve administrative efficiency, enhance public participation, and clarify the accessibility of rights protection and the timeliness of institutional response. Specifically, the mediation mechanism in the draft for soliciting opinions emphasizes diverse participation and flexible resolution, achieving pre conflict resolution without changing consumer demands, reducing administrative confrontation, and promoting multi-party trust repair. In the mediation process, if identification is required, a designated identification mechanism should be introduced to solve the problem of "difficult identification" in practice and promote dispute resolution. At the same time, the draft for soliciting opinions also improves the efficiency of handling complaints and reports. Including the addition of requirements for follow-up effectiveness, it is stipulated that market regulatory departments should improve the efficiency of complaint handling, conduct sample follow-up on complaints, and evaluate the handling situation; The new notification method stipulates that the market supervision department can independently choose the Internet, telephone, SMS, e-mail, fax, letter and other channels for notification according to the actual work; Optimize the handling of reports, stipulating that for whistleblowers who repeatedly report the same reported facts and the same reported person, there will be no further handling; Strengthen source control and stipulate that market supervision departments shall disclose consumer complaint information and handling results in accordance with the law. The overall mechanism design not only safeguards the basic rights of consumers, but also guides them to understand procedural rules and express their rights protection demands rationally. ”Zhang Yanfang said. Unlike the complaint system that focuses on individual rights protection and the reporting system that focuses on safeguarding public interests, the requirements and procedures for handling the two are different. The "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" released this time sets them separately. In terms of subject scope, reporting is not limited to consumers, any unit or individual can raise it, and the content of the report is not limited to matters directly related to their own rights, but focuses on the discovery of illegal clues. The clause emphasizes specific facts and strong verifiability, promoting the reporting system from "accumulation of clues" to "precise governance"; And based on prominent issues in practice, new handling methods for duplicate reports have been added. The draft for soliciting opinions also optimizes the jurisdiction provisions for complaints and reports. In the field of e-commerce, the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" specifically optimizes the complaint jurisdiction of platform operators. On the premise that consumers can choose to file complaints through "online stores or platforms", it adds a provision that if the platform does not disclose its real business address and effective contact information, the market supervision department of the actual business location of the platform operator can transfer the complaint to the market supervision department of the platform operator's domicile for handling. The latter shall not refuse without justifiable reasons, and the processing period shall be recalculated from the date of receipt. (New Society)