Research On Punitive Compensation System Of Consumer Public Interest Litigation

In the series of cases of "fake salt" in Guangdong Province,the court for the first time supported the litigation request of the consumer public interest lawsuit plaintiff to demand the defendant to bear a high amount of punitive damages in the consumer public interest lawsuit.This judgment not only represents a significant breakthrough in legislation but also has a groundbreaking significance in judicial practice.As a result,more and more procuratorates and consumer associations have claimed punitive damages against illegal operators in consumer public interest litigation.In judicial practice,punitive damages cases in consumer public interest litigation have become increasingly important.However,due to the lack of unified standards in the application of subject,scope,conditions,calculation,attribution,and use of punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation in our country’s substantive law,there are differences in judgments for similar cases in judicial practice.Therefore,researching the issues of punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation is not only a theoretical academic need but also a practical demand.Based on this,this paper will use theoretical research methods and empirical analysis methods to conduct a detailed study of the system.Specifically,the author first conducts multi-angle theoretical research on the basic concepts and development process of the system of punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation,and explains the necessity of the system’s application in China.Secondly,using empirical analysis methods,the author takes 300 judgments that conform to the system in judicial practice as research samples and uses the litigation process as the logical clue to analyze the system’s application conditions,scope,calculation base of compensation,and the application rules of compensation with administrative fines and criminal fines,as well as the management and use of compensation funds through data presentation.Finally,the following recommendations are proposed in response to the above problems in judicial practice: First,strictly demonstrate the establishment conditions of the system(especially the subjective elements of operators),mitigate the conditions,and clarify the burden of proof to solve the problem of the system’s application conditions.Second,clearly define the scope of application of the system as "infringement actions that seriously violate the personal rights and interests of unspecified consumers," and implement the judicial concept of "humility" to solve the problem of the system’s overly broad scope of application.Third,clarify the calculation method of punitive damages: using the illegal gains of illegal operators as the calculation base of compensation,with a coefficient of 2-5,and in certain conditions,can be used as a substitute for fines.This will solve the problem of the lack of unified standards in the calculation of punitive damages.Fourth,clearly state that punitive damages and administrative fines and criminal fines are independently applicable,thus solving the problem of unclear application rules of punitive damages with administrative fines and criminal fines.Fifth,clearly define the distribution of punitive damages among consumers,public interest lawsuit plaintiffs,and public interest funds,and strengthen the supervision of the use of compensation funds,thus solving the problem of unclear management and use of punitive damages.