Study On The Legal Rules Of False Publicity In Live Broadcasting

Under the background of the rapid development of the Internet economy,especially with the impact of the epidemic on the real economy,"live delivery" has become an effective means to replace the traditional offline marketing in the post epidemic period.According to the data of the Ministry of Commerce,the sales of "live delivery" in 2020 has accounted for nearly half of China’s e-commerce.In the context of the widespread rise of the "live broadcast" tide,commodities have received more accurate exposure,and consumers also enjoy a more intuitive shopping experience than the product introduction of "picture + text" in the shopping process.However,with the exponential expansion of the live broadcast goods market,the problems brought by its brutal growth have gradually emerged,among which the most common is the false publicity of the anchor on the goods.The false propaganda of live broadcasting with goods has caused double damage to the rights and interests of consumers and the market economy,and will also lose the foundation of consumer trust in the subsequent development of this industry,which is very harmful.Three typical cases,such as "Simba selling fake bird’s nest" case,reflect that in the practical form of live broadcasting with goods,false publicity is cheap and utilitarian for the anchor.After the "rollover",consumers are faced with multiple perpetrators with unclear responsibility relationship and obvious absolute dominant position,such as merchants,anchor,MCN institutions and platforms,which are difficult to protect their rights.At the level of subject elements,the subject of live broadcasting with goods has diversity,relevance and complexity.Although some scholars have proposed to set the anchor’s advance compensation obligation,it is not certain whether this obligation has a legal basis in different delivery modes.In terms of subjectivity,it is difficult to identify the purpose of "pursuing improper competitive advantage" of anchor and MCN institutions in practice,and the "laissez faire" attitude of the platform is also difficult to identify.At this time,the judge’s judgment depends on both the "virtual situation" and the "actual order" of the market;In the live delivery mode,it is more difficult for consumers to know the product information and the relatively weak situation is more obvious.There are disputes about whether their protection needs to be specially strengthened and whether the demands of consumers who know and buy fake products in the market should be supported.In the objective aspect,the existing laws do not clearly identify the qualitative standards of "misleading","adverse impact on the market" and false publicity.To sum up,combined with the analysis of the "four elements" of false publicity in live broadcast and goods and the existing legal provisions,it can be found that there are still many imperfections in the current legal regulation of China.In the future legislative amendments,we should clearly define the scope of the false propaganda behavior of live broadcasting with goods,clarify the legal relationship and responsibility of the subject of the false propaganda behavior of live broadcasting with goods,and set reasonable judgment standards for the "misleading" and "confusing behavior" with great identification disputes.