Internet Trading Platform Providers Tort

With the rapid development of e-commerce, a new business transactions online shopping emerge, Internet trading platform provider rapid rise led by Taobao, eBay. Online shopping as a new business model, be no longer subject to time and space constraints of traditional shopping. It has incomparable superiority of traditional shopping, be respected for the majority of consumers for simple, inexpensive, varied. But behind the rapid development of online shopping, infringement often happens. The consumer’s right to know, the right to fair trade, privacy violations, Intellectual property owners’copyright, trademark, patent be violated. In these infringement, Internet trading platform provider directly implemented tort or abetting or help sellers commit infringement. As the two giants of online retailers, Taobao and eBay are mired in the infringement dispute.The legal status of Internet trading platform provider in network transactions is the key to decide Internet trading platform provider whether to assume the infringement liability. Academia have different points about the legal position of Internet trading platform provider. The main points are seller, counter rental, intermediator and so on. The different modes of operation determines the different legal status of Internet trading platform provider. The legal status is seller for the sales-type Internet trading platform provider, because its purpose is to sell their goods to profit by providing Internet trading platform. The most typical is Jingdong Mall. In this mode, the Internet trading platform provider is node seller. The legal status is Internet service provider Independent of the buyers and sellers for the media-type Internet trading platform provider. In this mode, the Internet trading platform provider is not involved in the transaction of buyers and sellers, just to provide technical services, the most typical is Taobao.Internet trading platform provider as a provider of electronic trading venues, obtained from the network transaction service fees. Therefore, the Internet trading platform provider should bear a certain duty of care to protect the safety of the buyers and sellers trading. Most countries’ legislation and practice tend to require Internet trading platform provider to bear some responsibility for infringing activities on the website of the seller. When Internet trading platform provider abetting or lure his registered sellers implement tort, as he has motivation to intentionally infringed the rights of others, so he should bear tort ability together with seller. When the Internet trading platform provider know his registered sellers infringed the rights of others but doesn’t take appropriate measures to stop, as he at least has the fault of not fulfill the reasonable duty of care, so he should bear the supplementary liability adapt with his fault.Throughout the world, the tort liability imputation principle of the Internet trading platform provider experienced from no-fault liability principle to the principle of fault liability transition. When online shopping was just rising, many countries generally provided the no-fault liability principle in order to standardize this new thing. But with the rapid development of network transactions, online transactions has become an important industry as a pivotal position in the national economy, continue to implement no-fault liability principle will hinder the development of the online shopping industry. Therefore, to some extent, the transition from no-fault liability principle to fault liability principle is the transformation of the industrial policy following the economic trends. Because the Internet trading platform provider holds the registered user’s details and transaction records, his burden of proof is higher than the infringed party by virtue of his technical expertise. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to apply presumption of fault for the tort liability imputation principle of the Internet trading platform provider, the Internet trading platform provider bears the burden of its own no-fault. When the the registered users seller implement infringement and cause harm to the right holder, construct the Internet trading platform provider subjective at fault at least misfeasance, but if the Internet trading platform provider can prove that they have done a reasonable duty of care, the Internet trading platform provider does not bear tort liability.