Workflow
刷好评
icon
Search documents
3300多万个账户信息被泄露,全国总人口才5100多万!韩国最大电商发补贴“求原谅”:每户5万韩元
Mei Ri Jing Ji Xin Wen· 2025-12-30 11:41
每经编辑|许绍航 据珠江之声援引韩联社报道,韩国电商巨头Coupang12月29日就大规模用户个人资讯外泄事件提出补偿方案,宣布将向约3300多万名受影响用户每人发放 5万韩元(约人民币241.5元)补偿,总补偿金额高达1.685万亿韩元(约人民币81.39亿元)。 韩国统计厅公布的《2023人口及居住普查》结果显示,截至2023年11月1日,韩国总人口数为5177万。 据悉,Coupang的补偿金将以代金券的形式发放,公司计划从明年1月15日起陆续发放,发放对象为今年11月底被通知资讯遭泄的3370万个账号用户。 Coupang韩国公司临时代表罗杰斯同日发布公告,表示公司全体人员就此次资讯外泄事件导致广大用户深感担忧进行深刻反省,公司透过此次补偿措施承 担应有责任,并再次向用户诚挚致歉。 此前,Coupang于11月底发生资料外泄事故,涉及Coupang逾3300万用户,接近公司全部客户的数量。据路透社,事件发生后,Coupang的亿万富翁创始人 金范锡(Bom Kim)未出席首尔国会就该公司数据泄露事件举行的听证会,此举激怒了议员们,他们表示将采取法律行动。 图:Coupang创始人金范锡(Bom Kim ...
大众点评起诉“刷评”公司!还有人因刷好评获刑
Yang Zi Wan Bao Wang· 2025-04-22 14:00
Core Points - The case involves a lawsuit by a company operating the Dianping platform against a company in Changsha for engaging in "brushing" services, which led to a court ruling of 100,000 yuan in damages for unfair competition [1][5][6] - The court determined that the defendant's actions constituted unfair competition as they aimed to generate false reviews without actual transactions, harming the credibility of the Dianping platform [6][9] Summary by Sections Case Background - A company in Changsha was accused of organizing individuals to provide false five-star reviews for merchants on the Dianping platform without real transactions [2][4] - The plaintiff, the operator of Dianping, sought 531,000 yuan in damages, claiming that the defendant's actions misled consumers and constituted unfair competition [2][6] Court Ruling - The court ruled that the defendant's actions were aimed at profit and constituted unfair competition, leading to a judgment of 100,000 yuan in damages [5][6] - The court emphasized that the integrity of consumer reviews is crucial for the operation of the Dianping platform, and the defendant's actions undermined this integrity [6] Legal Implications - The case highlights the potential for civil liability and, in severe cases, criminal liability for engaging in "brushing" activities, which can be classified as false advertising [7][8] - Legal experts noted that the definition of competition has expanded in the internet economy, allowing for broader interpretations of unfair competition beyond direct industry rivals [9]