CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yue Dai, Zhenghao Li and Xiaokun Yuan, King & Wood Mallesons
Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Procuratorate Since the Civil Procedure Law granted procura - torates the power of commencing public inter - est litigation, procuratorates have developed the model of “Criminal Sanction Plus Public Interest litigation” in product liability disputes to bet - ter protect the interests of consumers. On 15 March 2024, the Supreme People’s Procurator - ate released “Typical Cases of Public Interest Litigation Filed by Procuratorates on Consumer Rights Protection” . One of the typical cases where the procurator - ate pursued public interest litigation in addi - tion to criminal procedures involved the sale of baby products. During the investigation on the respondent’s selling of baby feeding bot - tles that infringed trade mark rights, the local procuratorate in Shenzhen also found evidence of violations affecting the interests of consum - ers and infants. Further inspection demonstrated that the infringing products were mainly made of polycarbonate, thus failing to meet the relevant national standard on infant products and harm - ing the health of infants. The local procurator - ate then commenced public interest litigation in the Shenzhen local court on grounds of the respondent selling unqualified counterfeit infant products that harmed public interest. The court ultimately ordered the defendant to pay puni - tive damages and issue a public apology on the state media. Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Consumer Association and Supported by the Procuratorate On 15 March 2025, the Supreme People’s Proc - uratorate, together with China Consumers Asso - ciation, released a collection of public interest litigation cases aimed at promoting the protec - tion of consumer interests.
holder shall still assume the liability of punitive damages. Interpretation of “Unreasonable Danger” Since the establishment of the “People’s Court Case Database” , several product liability cases have been selected as “Case for Reference” , indicating their referential value in adjudication. One of these selected cases concerns the inter - pretation of “unreasonable danger” under the concept of product defect. In (2022) Lu 0113 Min Chu No 5595 (decided by Changqing District Court, Jinan), the plaintiff’s wife purchased a multifunctional steamer from the respondent who claimed that the equipment had therapeutic effects. Since the plaintiff was paralysed, his wife held him over the equipment for half an hour before finding that the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff then claimed com - pensation and punitive damages against the respondent. Despite the seller having submitted inspection reports to prove the product quality and argu - ing that the reason for such injury was that the plaintiff was paralysed, the court held that the determination of “unreasonable danger” shall take into account whether the product safety can be reasonably expected during the course of normal use. Therefore, the equipment shall guar - antee that it was safe when being used by peo - ple other than those explicitly prohibited from use. However, the court found that the product did not explicitly exclude paralysed people from use, and the seller was at fault for not notifying the customer in advance and thus shall bear the compensation. The court did not find any fraud and rejected the claim for punitive damages.
54
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook