Recently, the “problem bird’s nest incident” has been exposed in the field of live broadcasting with goods. The anchor team has given compensation scheme to the emerging bank, but the division of responsibilities and the basis of compensation standards still need to be further clarified. Experts said that many departments have issued guidance for live delivery, but the industry is in chaos. The handling of this incident will become a touchstone for the implementation of relevant regulations. < / P > < p > recently, the well-known anchor team Simba has fallen into the “problem bird’s nest incident”, which continues to attract public attention. After the problem had been fermented for many days, the anchor team put forward the compensation plan in advance, “recall all the” Mingzhi “brand bird’s nest products sold in Xinxuan live studio, and bear the responsibility of one refund and three compensation”, and solve the problem first. But Wang Hai, a professional cracker on counterfeit goods, said he should “pay back one for ten.”. < p > < p > since this year, e-commerce live broadcasting has been booming. However, while the sales data of live broadcast are constantly rising, the frequency of “rollover” of live broadcast with goods is also increasing. The problems such as false publicity of live broadcast with goods, unable to guarantee product quality, and difficulty in returning and replacing goods are becoming increasingly prominent. < / P > < p > how to determine the liability after the “rollover” of live broadcast with goods, and what are the legal standards for compensation? In this regard, the reporter of workers’ daily interviewed relevant experts. Recently, Wang Hai, a professional anti-counterfeiter, said on his micro blog that there was a problem with the ingredients of a “Mingzhi” brand of “Minzhi” which was sold in the Xinxuan live broadcasting room. According to the test report of the bird’s nest, the sugar content of the product is 4.8%, while the carbohydrate content in the ingredient list is 5%. It is confirmed that the product is sugar water. After that, Xin Youzhi (Simba), founder of Guangdong Xinxuan holding company, publicly responded in his personal micro blog that after testing, this “Mingzhi” brand bird’s nest product did have exaggerated promotion in the live broadcasting room. The ingredients of bird’s nest were less than 2G per bowl. This product “is actually a bird’s nest flavor drink, and should not be promoted as bird’s nest products”. At the same time, Simba said that Xinxuan put forward the compensation plan in advance, “recall all the” Mingzhi “brand bird’s nest products sold in Xinxuan’s live broadcasting room, and undertake the responsibility of one refund and three compensation” (57820 orders were sold, with a sales amount of 15495760 yuan, and a total of 61983040 yuan should be refunded first), so as to solve the problem first. < / P > < p > why is “refund one for three”? Liu Junhai, a professor of the Law School of Renmin University of China, told reporters that according to the provisions of Article 55 of the law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests, if a business operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer according to the requirements of the consumer. The increased compensation amount shall be three times of the price of the consumer’s purchase of the commodity or the cost of receiving the service 3 “. < / P > < p > “in this case, Simba also admitted that the” bird’s nest “promoted by his team had exaggerated publicity. Therefore, the law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests must be applied to this matter, and at least one compensation must be made. ” Chen Yinjiang, Deputy Secretary General of the Consumer Protection Law Research Association of China law society, said. < / P > < p > according to Simba’s response, the brand promotion cooperation agreement signed between Xinxuan and Guangzhou Rongyu company (i.e. “Mingzhi” bird’s nest brand party) clearly stipulates that the product description, introduction, pictures and other information provided to “Shida beautiful” for display and sale are free from false information, do not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of any third party, and conform to the production country and sales Relevant laws, regulations and policies of the selling country; otherwise, all responsibilities and losses shall be borne by the brand. < / P > < p > “we coordinate with the brand side in accordance with the provisions of the contract, and hope that the brand side will compensate all users in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of the consumer protection law on false publicity.” “But because the brand side has been avoiding meeting each other, communication is not positive, and the plan is not clear, so I decided to take the initiative to actively respond to solve this incident,” Simba said < / P > < p > some netizens praised Simba’s attitude of facing problems and taking responsibility bravely. However, Wang Hai said that the “0.014 g sialic acid” in the “bird’s nest” product was actually artificially added, requiring “one refund and ten compensation”. < p > < p > < p > Where does the “refund one for ten” come from? According to media reports, “Mingzhi” bowl flavor instant bird’s nest product ingredients contain calcium lactate, the product category is flavor drinks. However, according to the standards for the use of food additives issued by the national health and Family Planning Commission, calcium lactate is not suitable for “flavor drinks”. < / P > < p > according to Article 148 of the food safety law, in order to produce food that does not conform to the food safety standards or manages the food that does not meet the food safety standards, the consumer may not only demand compensation for the loss, but also ask the producer or operator to pay compensation for 10 times of the price or 3 times of the loss. Wang Hai believes that the flavor beverage is not in line with the food safety standards of food, consumers can ask for a “refund of 10.”. However, some lawyers said that the premise of “refund one for ten” is that it has an impact on personal safety, which needs to be identified by relevant departments. If the “bird’s nest” is identified as food that does not meet the safety standards, consumers can ask for “one refund for ten”. < / P > < p > “the bird’s nest incident caused widespread concern in the society, which reflected a lot of chaos behind the live broadcast with goods. Although a number of departments have recently issued new regulations to regulate the development of live with goods industry, at present, the false publicity of live broadcasting with goods, the quality of products can not be guaranteed, and it is difficult to guarantee the return and replacement of goods and other issues have not been significantly changed. ” Chen Yinjiang said. In Chen Yinjiang’s view, the handling of this incident is the touchstone of whether the relevant provisions can be implemented. If the problem is solved well, it will not only provide a reference for the relevant departments to deal with similar problems in the future, but also have a deterrent effect on the relevant live marketing operators. It can make the operators of network live broadcasting understand thoroughly that there is no regulatory gap in the network live broadcast. As long as the relevant laws and regulations are violated and the rights and interests of consumers are damaged, they must pay the due price. To be specific, we should make clear the division of responsibilities of all parties in the Xin Yan Wo incident. For example, what are the responsibilities of the Simba team? What is the responsibility of the live broadcasting platform? What is the responsibility of bird’s nest production enterprises? Are consumers required to “refund one for three” or “refund one for ten” according to the law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests? Can the infringement subject be included in the credit blacklist? These problems need to be determined according to the specific investigation. ” Chen Yinjiang said. In addition, Liu Junhai believes that the Simba team and brand owners may also face administrative responsibilities. According to the provisions of Article 56 of the law on the protection of the rights and interests of consumers, those who make false or misleading publicity about goods or services shall, in addition to bearing corresponding civil liabilities, be subject to the provisions of other relevant laws and regulations on the punishment authorities and punishment methods; if there are no provisions in the laws and regulations, the administrative department for Industry and commerce or others shall have the right to If the circumstances are serious, they shall be ordered to suspend business for rectification and their business license shall be revoked. After 12 years, “world class Super project” Shantou Bay Tunnel ushers in a historic breakthrough today