The plaintiff in this case, Ms. Wang, watched the live broadcast on January 2, 2023 in the WeChat public account live broadcast room certified by the defendant Company A, which specializes in selling second-hand luxury bags. When introducing a certain bag, the anchor in the live broadcast room promised that if the customer buys a fake, the compensation will be no less than three times of the counter price, that is, CNY 220,000. Ms. Wang paid CNY 38,888 to buy the bag. However, after receiving the bag, Ms. Wang found that the bag was fake according to the appraisal certificate. After many negotiations between the two parties, Company A only refunded Ms. Wang CNY 38,888. Ms. Wang claimed that Company A should compensate her CNY 220,000 as promised by the Anchor during the live broadcasting, but Company A refused to respond.

The court of first instance held that in this case, Ms. Wang and Company A entered into the information network sales contract in accordance with the law. According to the live broadcast video provided by Ms. Wang and the host's statement during the live broadcast, it can be seen that the host promised many times that if it was a fake bag, it would be compensated at no less than three times the counter price, that is, CNY 220,000. Although this amount is higher than three times the price of Ms. Wang's bag, the promise was agreed by Ms. Wang and Company A in the commodity transaction to calculate the amount of punitive compensation, reflecting the true intention of both parties. The bag involved in the case purchased by Ms. Wang does not meet the craftsmanship characteristics of the brand's genuine products, so Company A should compensate according to the promise made in the live broadcast.

The court of first instance finally ruled that Company A should compensate Ms. Wang at no less than three times the counter price of the bag, that is, CNY 220,000. Later, Company A appealed, and the case has been dismissed and the original judgment has been upheld.

Generally speaking, when consumers purchase counterfeit goods, they can claim compensation in accordance with the law, that is, three times the actual price of the goods purchased or the service fee received. In this case, if the anchor in the live broadcast room did not make a special promise, Ms. Wang could claim compensation in accordance with three times the payment of CNY 38,888. However, when the operator on the platform sells goods promising a compensation standard which is higher than the relevant statutory compensation standard, the promise can be considered as an agreement between the consumer and the operator on the calculation method of the amount of punitive compensation in the commodity transaction, reflecting the true intention of both parties. According to relevant laws, the People's Court supports this.

Source:
Link 1 (Chinese)
Link 2 (Chinese)