Net sales "Crystal white" necklace has neither gold nor Crystal, Amazon was sentenced to pay 10 times-Amazon-IT information
Liu on the Amazon's third-party store, bought a "Crystal white gold" necklaces. But Mr Liu after detecting that the necklace is not only not Platinum components, even the inlay gems are not crystal. Because they think that Amazon's consumer fraud, Mr LAU will be Amazon Manager Beijing century excellence in information technology company to court, in accordance with commitments of the page "ten" compensation. Beijing morning news reporter learned yesterday, the Court supported Mr Liu's appeal.
Consumer online shopping fake sued Amazon
Liu complained, on October 25, 2014, he bought two in the Amazon "genuine Crystal S925 silver plated Platinum" necklace, price to 326. Merchants say, commodity materials for surface plating Platinum, three-layer plating Platinum, and pledged to support the review and lost ten. Necklace jewelry appraisal Center by the China geological University and the conclusion is not Platinum-containing composition, synthesis of cubic zirconia gem materials for non-crystal. Mr Liu believes that Amazon's fraud, to court, asking the Court to award compensation for Amazon 3160. For the prosecution, Amazon argued that companies do not make false ten commitments.
Court of first instance finds that, after testing, embedded parts of goods involved is not crystal, nor declared Platinum-containing composition, sales fraud, should be under the consumer protection act and the refund, liability under contract law.
Amazon is liable, the Court held that, in connection with the product order page, clearly set out a ten, but did not specify that the promise of a third-party seller, to the common sense of the ordinary members of the public, the promise posted on Amazon's Web site, made public on the promise of the Amazon proper trust, therefore the Court Amazon liable.
Amazon accused of consumer fraud for profit
Amazon refuses to appeal a verdict. Amazon believes that its network platform to only the parties to the transaction, Amazon does not enjoy the right to contract, should not assume the obligation of contract. While Mr LAU knew the goods involved are not Amazon's proprietary product, also deserve to know product order page information is not released by Amazon.
Amazon said that it as a networking platform, are fully able to provide third-party sellers and real names, address and valid contact information, not in accordance with the law on network platform providers should take responsibility to consumers. In addition, Amazon said Mr Liu is professional fighting man, there is suspicion of intentionally buy fake profits.
Court: Platform responsible decision support rights
Municipal Court said that as far as the general public, select Amazon purchase goods, because Amazon has a higher social awareness and good business reputation, the products they buy, consumers will always have expectations for convenient and safe. In connection with the product purchase page, clearly states that "support the review, fake a ten", in the absence of a clear "ten" commitment, and product information and quality commitments under posted on Amazon's Web page, consumers believe that the commitment of Amazon, has reason for rationality.
In addition, the Court noted that, whether proprietary or non-proprietary goods, Amazon sales of its platform product introduction, description and related commitments, the responsibilities must review and management standards. But it is certainly, Amazon as either a seller or a network platform providers should be responsible for the consumer.
To sum up, Municipal Intermediate Court rejected the appeal and upheld the Court of final appeal ruling.
网售“水晶白金”项链既没白金也没水晶，亚马逊被判赔十倍 - 亚马逊 - IT资讯
刘先生在亚马逊的第三方店铺上，购买了一条“水晶白金”项链。但刘先生经过检测，发现项链不仅没有铂金成分，就连镶嵌的宝石也并非水晶。因认为亚马逊欺诈消费者，刘先生将亚马逊网经营者北京世纪卓越信息技术有限公司诉至法院，要求按照页面承诺的“假一赔十”赔偿。北京晨报记者昨天获悉，法院支持了刘先生的诉求。
消费者网购假货起诉亚马逊
刘先生诉称，2014年10月25日，他在亚马逊网购买了两个“正品水晶S925银镀白金”项链，价款为326元。商家称，商品材质为表面电镀真白金，三层镀白金，并承诺支持复检并假一赔十。事后项链经中国地质大学珠宝鉴定中心检测，结论为不含铂金成分，所镶嵌宝石材质为合成立方氧化锆，非水晶。故刘先生认为亚马逊存在欺诈，诉至法院，请求法院判令亚马逊赔偿其3160元。对于起诉，亚马逊辩称，公司未做出假一赔十的承诺。
一审法院审理认定，经过检测，涉案的商品镶嵌部分并非水晶，也不含宣示的白金成分，销售行为存在欺诈，应当就此承担《消费者权益保障法》及《合同法》项下之退款、赔偿责任。
关于亚马逊是否承担赔偿责任，法院认为，在涉案产品的订购页面之中，明确载明假一赔十，但未明确指明该项承诺系第三方卖家作出，以一般社会公众的常识判断，该项承诺发布于亚马逊网站，公众对于该项承诺系亚马逊作出存在合理信赖，故此法院判定亚马逊承担赔偿责任。
亚马逊指责消费者打假谋利
亚马逊不服一审判决提出上诉。亚马逊认为，其仅为交易双方提供网络平台，亚马逊既不享受合同履行中的权利，也不应承担合同履行中的义务。而刘先生既然知晓涉案商品并非亚马逊自营商品，也就理应知晓商品订单页面信息并非由亚马逊发布。
亚马逊表示，其作为网络平台，也完全能够提供第三方卖家真实名称、地址及有效联系方式等，不符合法律关于网络平台提供者应向消费者承担责任的情形。此外，亚马逊称刘先生是职业打假人，有知假买假进行谋利之嫌疑。
法院：平台应负责任判决支持维权
市三中院表示，就一般公众而言，选择在亚马逊购买商品，是因亚马逊具有较高的社会知名度以及良好的商业信誉，在购买商品时，消费者一般会有便捷、安全的心理预期。在涉案商品购买页面中，明确载明“支持复检，假一赔十”，在未明确做出“假一赔十”的承诺主体，而商品信息及质量承诺发布于亚马逊网站页面情形下，消费者认为该承诺系亚马逊网站做出，具有原因合理性。
此外，法院指出，无论对自营或非自营商品，亚马逊对在其平台销售的商品介绍、描述及相关承诺等，均应负一定的审查及管理规范责任。但无可否认的是，亚马逊无论是作为销售者还是网络平台提供者，应对消费者负责。
综上，市三中院作出驳回上诉，维持原判的终审裁定。