Li Decheng: A Case Study of Typical E-commerce Legal Disputes

Moderator (): Thank you, Mr. Zhang. The last speaker this morning was lawyer Li Decheng, a member of the Information Network Professional Committee of the National Lawyers Association. His theme is typical case analysis of legal disputes in e-commerce. Welcome everyone.

Li Decheng: Dear Secretary-General Li Yingfeng, supporters of the conference, ladies and gentlemen, hello! I don't really think about this topic today. I will write a case every month to give some opinions and suggestions to the industry. I want to take this opportunity to refine my case.

The first question is about the electronic signature law. I personally participated in the drafting of the electronic signature law until it was finally submitted to the National People's Congress for deliberation. I took part in soliciting opinions. I know the importance of this law. We should not think that the problem of integrity in the network environment can not be solved by this electronic signature method alone. I didn't throw cold water on you. I am well aware of the problem of this law. Mainly to solve fraud, mainly for third parties. We must understand a truth. I have repeatedly talked about the influence of legislation, and I have also repeatedly talked about such issues. We shouldn't expect the law to solve all the problems. The problems that the law can solve are very limited. I have been engaged in this research for a long time, but I have repeatedly reminded you not to study legal non-legal issues. In addition, we don't want all legal problems related to e-commerce to be solved by this law. We must be aware of this.

Next, we talked about the implementation of the electronic signature law. At a meeting in Shanghai, we had an experience that it still needs a process for the electronic signature law to really play its role. I am glad to see the drafting of the supporting system with the participation of various ministries and commissions. On this issue, I would like to make a point, because Mr. Chen and I have hosted many activities of American scholars in the forefront of network legal research. In the course of our communication, we were surprised to find that their attitude towards electronic signature has declined positively. In their words, the first electronic signature law published in the United States has little influence, but it is different in China, including self-regulatory organizations in the industry and local media. This is the first question. The second question, about the establishment of the system, is a very complicated issue, and I don't want to elaborate on it.

I would like to remind you that there is a very serious problem in the construction of integrity, that is, the control of online personal data. You can't just talk about online platform transactions, or other transactions or some profit models developed based on online game customer database resources. We all need to be based on the control of personal information. This statement does not mean that we should not let everyone use it. When we use it, we should have a reasonable system and use it reasonably. Otherwise, all the information you give out is false, or most of it is false, which will make us lack a relatively honest foundation. Another job I did was to study a monograph, that is, the issue of network privacy is a key issue, and I did a research in this area. This is a question about establishing a credit system. This is a key issue, and we must pay attention to it. Our credit alliance and credit evaluation should be based on information, including collection, collation and future commercial use. Why is GOOGLE developing so fast now? This involves the issue of information relevance, which is also a very good profit model.

The third is about the mature and safe model. Generally speaking, consumers. In fact, we should consider a profit model. What does this mean? We discuss whether a certain consumption is safe, and we discuss whether the profit model is safe. Let's take a closer look at the best and best profit model of listed companies under the current situation. Many of their problems are in conflict with our current laws (laws promulgated by the National People's Congress and the Standing Committee), except that they are more or less in conflict with other departmental regulations. This is recognized, and it also provides us with some space. We have produced more than 65,438+000 documents through stock discounts. , solve the listing problem, and put forward a series of problems approved by the government, such as online publishing. We went to study Shanda's listing materials, and found a problem when studying this profit model, indicating that the profit model that we are optimistic about, the enterprises and models that all walks of life should be optimistic about by everyone, is not in line with our norms. This is a joke. Let's make it public and see if our products are right. For example, when I was interviewed by some media, they asked me whether the gambling problems involved in online games should be regulated, but we can't simply think that the next regulation is gambling. We can't do this, because we have to have a basis to study whether it is good or not and whether it is prohibited by law. Why? Because every society has to make people uncomfortable. Whether we want to ban it or not, we need our industry self-regulatory organizations, including officials from our government departments, to study whether these behaviors or games have reached a pattern that society cannot tolerate. This is my third question.

Regarding the mature safety model, I would like to mention some problems of our industry self-regulatory organization. I am accepting questions from relevant leaders in Zhongguancun, asking if I am a high-tech industry. This is a big policy. We have formulated so many policies, why do they play a weak role? This is a headache for leaders. We have studied it carefully, and some studies have been divorced from non-legal procedures. I am glad that all of you here have industry self-regulatory organizations, which are doing positive and meaningful work, including some work we just did with some working committees yesterday. In their own words, we have done some work in cultivating our competitors. The role of industry self-regulatory organizations makes the construction of our credit system a crucial aspect. The whole code of conduct system is not the unified management of law, so we should pay special attention to it. We have repeatedly stressed one thing. These norms include laws, professional codes of conduct and, of course, ethics. Frankly speaking, they also include the issue of total price. For the code of conduct, it is more important to pay attention to industry self-regulatory organizations at present, because the law can't lead to all problems, such as online gambling, for example, what kind of bottom line some have reached, and industry self-regulatory organizations must make corresponding regulations. We can divide these into several levels, some of which must be strictly enforced and absolutely not done, and this can be promoted to law. In particular, we strongly advise against doing so. Why is it easy to break through because of the reference and ambiguity of related behaviors? This is a very different norm. In turn, it is an important part of China's credit system construction.

There are also problems of information disclosure and unfair competition. I'm a lawyer. In this environment, many problems in the network environment are caused by information asymmetry. It can be said that information asymmetry is a very common phenomenon in the network environment. Especially at present, it can be analyzed that the most profitable problems are the most profitable, including games, including search engines, and of course others, more of which are information asymmetry. Information asymmetry is a good factor for the development of profit model. We can't avoid this, which is a factor that greatly hinders us from presenting the system. I personally want to solve this problem from several aspects. The first is that industries organize their work through self-discipline, and I still emphasize this point. I have always believed that there are two reasons for the poor development of industry self-regulatory organizations. One is institutional reasons, which sometimes turn into the role of the government, but the more important issue is the attitude with the government and the gradual improvement of the status of industry self-regulatory organizations. We should give full play to their role.

Information asymmetry and information disclosure will enable us to effectively solve such problems. If we disclose our information effectively, we won't have a serious and excessive breakthrough. Why do you say that? For example, the game, as the operator of the game, to what extent do I control the players? If your control mechanism exceeds the necessary limit, or such information disclosure is not enough for other consumers to know, it is healthy and will not lead to obvious unfairness and fraud. This is a problem with our equipment, and information disclosure will also be involved at this time, but to what extent you disclose it, we need to study. This requires several organizations.

I want to use the last sentence to illustrate my point of view. Professional intermediaries of industry self-regulatory organizations include lawyers and enterprises. Of course, I can't forget our big government, which studies some problems together and forms general problems as normative problems of the industry to release and guide. Thank you!