11月20日，南都·湾财社记者尝试联系采访兰世立，截至发稿前未得到回应。针对此事，11月20日，益海嘉里相关负责人仅回复南都·湾财社记者称，兰世立 已发布道歉声明，并未回应更多。 兰世立就涉金龙鱼油罐车运油相关言论致歉 一审、二审法院均认定系不实言论 11月11日，兰世立首次发布了对益海嘉里的道歉声明。根据声明，兰世立道歉是因为侵犯了益海嘉里食品营销有限公司的名誉权，他在去年7月11日发布了 一条视频，标题为《武汉用油罐车运食油的事太离谱了！》，称"金龙鱼两天之内跌了6500亿""你以为为了省两个成本干了这种事情没有报应""运油以后连 清洗都不清洗""金龙鱼第一个就该退市"等。 声明显示，现经法院调查，上述言论均与事实不符。 兰世立在道歉声明表示，承诺今后不再发布任何不实言论，以此为戒，守住法律底线，诚恳接受广大市民的监督与批评。 因称金龙鱼"运油以后连清洗都不清洗"，近日，湖北前首富兰世立公开向金龙鱼母公司益海嘉里道歉，但10天后，即11月21日，剧情极速反转，兰世立公开 称要向金龙鱼宣战，并称就益海嘉里隐匿收款一事进行起诉。 兰世立和益海嘉里的名誉权纠纷，始于去年7月的油罐车食用油事件。金龙鱼曾于去年7月 ...

因称金龙鱼"运油以后连清洗都不清洗"，近日，湖北前首富兰世立公开向金龙鱼母公司益海嘉里道歉，但10天后，即11月21日，剧情极速反转，兰世立公开 称要向金龙鱼宣战，并称就益海嘉里隐匿收款一事进行起诉。 11月20日，南都湾财社记者尝试联系采访兰世立，截至发稿前未得到回应。针对此事，11月20日，益海嘉里相关负责人仅回复南都湾财社记者称，兰世立已 发布道歉声明，并未回应更多。 兰世立就涉金龙鱼油罐车运油相关言论致歉 一审、二审法院均认定系不实言论 11月11日，兰世立首次发布了对益海嘉里的道歉声明。根据声明，兰世立道歉是因为侵犯了益海嘉里食品营销有限公司的名誉权，他在去年7月11日发布了 一条视频，标题为《武汉用油罐车运食油的事太离谱了！》，称"金龙鱼两天之内跌了6500亿""你以为为了省两个成本干了这种事情没有报应""运油以后连 清洗都不清洗""金龙鱼第一个就该退市"等。 声明显示，现经法院调查，上述言论均与事实不符。 兰世立在道歉声明表示，承诺今后不再发布任何不实言论，以此为戒，守住法律底线，诚恳接受广大市民的监督与批评。 兰世立和益海嘉里的名誉权纠纷，始于去年7月的油罐车食用油事件。金龙鱼曾于去年7月9日 ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the Chinese cosmetics brand "Hua Xizi" escalated after a live-streaming incident involving popular host Li Jiaqi, leading to a lawsuit against a self-media entity for alleged commercial defamation [1][6]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On September 10, 2023, Li Jiaqi commented on the pricing of Hua Xizi's eyebrow pencil during a live stream, which sparked public outrage and trending topics online [2][4]. - Following the incident, Hua Xizi's parent company, Hangzhou Yige Cosmetics Co., Ltd., issued a public relations letter titled "A Letter" on September 19, 2023 [4][5]. - A self-media article criticized the PR letter, claiming it resembled a "primary school essay" and highlighted the departure of several PR staff members [4][5]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - On December 9, 2024, Hua Xizi filed a lawsuit against the self-media entity for commercial defamation, seeking a total of 580,000 yuan in damages [1][6]. - The first-instance court ruled on June 27, 2025, ordering the self-media's sole shareholder, Zhao, to pay 300,000 yuan in damages and 20,000 yuan in reasonable expenses [7]. - Zhao appealed the decision, and the second-instance hearing took place on October 17, 2025, with new evidence submitted by Zhao's legal team [8][10]. Group 3: Court Findings - The court found that the self-media's article contained defamatory statements that harmed Hua Xizi's brand reputation, as it misrepresented the number of PR staff departures [7][8]. - The court noted that Zhao failed to verify the information provided by interviewees, which contributed to the misleading nature of the article [8][14]. - The court emphasized that commercial defamation requires proof of false information dissemination that damages commercial reputation, while Zhao argued for a reclassification of the case as a defamation of character [12][14]. Group 4: Implications for the Industry - The case highlights the challenges of balancing public commentary and commercial reputation in the digital age, particularly for brands in competitive industries like cosmetics [13][14]. - Legal experts suggest that self-media entities must exercise due diligence in verifying information to avoid potential legal repercussions related to defamation [14].

Core Points - Zhang Yazhou, the car owner involved in the Tesla roof protest, announced that Tesla has appealed against the first-instance ruling by the Beijing Daxing District People's Court, which ordered Tesla to provide complete driving data from 30 minutes before a traffic accident [1] - The court's decision was based on the recognition of consumer rights to information, deeming the data provision necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the vehicle's condition during the incident [1] - Zhang plans to apply for enforcement of the court's ruling and judicial appraisal of the data's authenticity and completeness [1] Group 1 - The first-instance ruling required Tesla to provide driving data from February 21, 2021, within ten days of the ruling's effectiveness [1] - Zhang expressed respect for Tesla's legal rights regarding the appeal and emphasized that the second-instance trial will focus on whether Tesla should provide the data, not on the content of the data itself [1] - Zhang previously faced a defamation lawsuit from Tesla related to her protest at the Shanghai Auto Show, resulting in a court ruling that she must apologize and pay 170,000 yuan [2]

Core Points - The ongoing dispute between Zhang Lan, Wang Xiaofei, and Meng He has escalated, with Meng He being ordered to pay compensation for defamation while maintaining that the fault does not lie with him [1][2] - Meng He claims that he is owed over 10 million yuan in unpaid commissions and wages from his time working with Ma Liu Ji, while the company disputes these claims and asserts that they have already paid over 10 million yuan in commissions [2] - The Beijing Arbitration Commission ruled that Ma Liu Ji owed Meng He 7.6 million yuan and additional penalties, but Meng He believes the ruling was influenced by his public statements during the dispute [2] Summary by Sections Legal Proceedings - On October 10, Wang Xiaofei shared a court ruling from the Beijing Internet Court, which mandated Meng He to publicly apologize and pay 5,000 yuan for mental distress [1] - Meng He has been ordered to pay 10,000 yuan to Zhang Lan as well [1] Background of the Dispute - The conflict began in March 2023 when it was revealed that over 20 members of the live-streaming team for Ma Liu Ji had left, leading Meng He to accuse the company of withholding payments [2] - Meng He alleges that he was forced to terminate his contract in 2023 and that he had advanced 900,000 yuan in employee wages that remain unpaid [2] Ongoing Tensions - The public feud continues with both parties exchanging accusations, including claims of defamation and financial misconduct [2] - Meng He plans to release the full arbitration ruling, indicating that the situation may escalate further [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Daxing District People's Court ruled in favor of a Tesla owner, requiring the company to provide complete driving data from thirty minutes prior to an accident, emphasizing consumer rights to information [3][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The court's decision mandates Tesla to deliver the requested driving data within ten days of the ruling [3]. - Initially, the plaintiff, Ms. Zhang, filed a product quality lawsuit but shifted to a data-related case due to Tesla's failure to provide complete data [3][4]. - Ms. Zhang plans to seek judicial appraisal of the data's authenticity and completeness once received [4]. Group 2: Incident Background - The case gained public attention in March 2021 when Ms. Zhang protested on top of a Tesla vehicle, claiming brake failure led to a serious accident involving her family [5]. - Tesla attributed the accident to the driver's violation of traffic rules, asserting no abnormalities in the vehicle's braking system [7]. - Following the incident, Ms. Zhang faced legal repercussions for her protest actions, including a five-day administrative detention [7]. Group 3: Financial Implications - Tesla filed a lawsuit against Ms. Zhang for defamation, seeking 5 million yuan in damages due to reputational harm from her protests [10]. - A subsequent court ruling found Ms. Zhang liable for defamation, ordering her to apologize and pay 172,275 yuan in damages [11]. - The incident reportedly caused Tesla direct losses exceeding 170 million yuan in orders and significant reputational damage [11].

Core Points - The incident involving two 17-year-old males urinating in a hot pot at a Hai Di Lao restaurant has led to a civil lawsuit filed by the company against the individuals and their parents, resulting in a court ruling for a total compensation of 2.2 million yuan [1][3][4] Group 1: Incident Details - The incident occurred on February 24, when the two individuals, after consuming alcohol, urinated into the hot pot and subsequently shared the video online [4] - The Shanghai Huangpu District Court ruled that both individuals acted with intent and were aware of the potential negative social impact of their actions [3][4] Group 2: Legal and Financial Implications - The court ordered the parents of the two individuals to pay 130,000 yuan for equipment damage and cleaning costs, along with 2 million yuan for business losses and reputational damage, plus 70,000 yuan for legal expenses, totaling 2.2 million yuan [3][4] - The ruling also included a requirement for the individuals to publicly apologize in designated newspapers while protecting their privacy as minors [3]

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving two minors urinating in a hot pot restaurant has led to significant legal and financial repercussions for the individuals involved and their parents, highlighting the importance of corporate reputation and consumer trust in the restaurant industry [2][5][7]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On February 24, 2025, two minors, Tang and Wu, urinated in a hot pot at a Haidilao restaurant and filmed the act, which was later shared on social media, causing public outrage [3][4]. - Following the incident, Haidilao issued a public apology, destroyed all affected utensils, and offered full refunds to 4,109 customers who dined during the incident [4][5]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - On March 14, 2025, the affected restaurant companies filed a lawsuit against the minors and their parents, seeking public apologies and compensation for damages totaling 23 million yuan (approximately 3.5 million USD) [4][5]. - The Shanghai Huangpu District Court ruled that the minors and their parents must publicly apologize and pay a total of 2.2 million yuan (approximately 330,000 USD) for damages, including 130,000 yuan for utensil replacement and cleaning costs, and 2 million yuan for business and reputation losses [5][6]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - The court's decision emphasizes the responsibility of guardians in supervising minors and the need for businesses to protect their reputation against unlawful acts [7][8]. - The ruling serves as a reminder that businesses are entitled to legal protection against actions that harm their property and reputation, reinforcing the importance of maintaining a lawful and respectful environment in public spaces [7][8].

Core Points - The incident involving two minors urinating in a hot pot at a Hai Di Lao restaurant led to significant public outrage and legal consequences [1][2] - The Shanghai Huangpu District Court ruled that the minors and their parents must publicly apologize and pay a total of 2.2 million yuan (approximately 220,000 USD) in damages to the affected restaurant companies [5][7] Group 1: Incident Overview - On February 24, 2025, the minors filmed themselves urinating in a hot pot and shared the video on social media, which quickly went viral [2][4] - Hai Di Lao issued a public apology, destroyed all affected utensils, and refunded over 4,100 customers while offering tenfold compensation for the incident [3][5] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The court found the minors jointly liable for their actions, recognizing their understanding of the potential legal consequences [6][8] - The total compensation included 130,000 yuan for utensil damage and cleaning costs, 2 million yuan for business and reputation losses, and 70,000 yuan for legal expenses [7][8] Group 3: Expert Opinions - Legal experts emphasized the importance of parental responsibility in supervising minors and the need for businesses to be protected from unlawful interference [8] - The ruling serves as a reminder that minors must respect social ethics and public order, and that their actions can lead to civil liability [8]

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling in Shanghai upheld the decision that the individual involved in the Tesla Shanghai Auto Show incident infringed on Tesla's reputation and is required to apologize and compensate Tesla financially [1] Group 1: Legal Outcomes - The Shanghai court ruled that Zhang, the woman who stood on the Tesla vehicle at the auto show, must apologize and pay Tesla 170,000 yuan [1] - The media figure who organized the incident is ordered to apologize and pay 250,000 yuan to Tesla due to their role in the event and ongoing defamatory actions against the company [1] - The judicial assessment indicated that the "Shanghai Auto Show incident" resulted in over 170 million yuan in direct order losses and several tens of millions in reputational damage for Tesla [1] Group 2: Incident Context - Following the incident, there were several claims of "brake failure" by Tesla owners, but investigations confirmed that these incidents were not related to Tesla vehicles [1] - Another case involved a CEO from a competing new energy vehicle company who was found liable for making inappropriate comments regarding the incident and was ordered to apologize and compensate Tesla [2]