知名"打假人"王海因多次打假有机生鲜品牌彩虹星球而被起诉，该案件迎来新进展。10月17日，南都N 视频记者从彩虹星球相关负责人处获悉，近日，陕西省西安市中级人民法院就彩虹星球起诉王海名誉侵 权一案作出终审判决，彩虹星球胜诉，王海需赔偿彩虹星球因名誉受损产生的相关费用共计9.78万元。 品牌方披露终审判决结果 王海表示，"经过我们送检、举报和消费者维权，相关部门已经行政认定，彩虹星球49个产品存在虚假 宣传。彩虹星球半熟芝士蛋糕、有机鱼丸、有机樱桃、盐田虾存在'假有机'等欺诈情况。另外，彩虹星 球还有至少20项涉嫌欺诈行为已经举报，在等处理结果中。" 曾多次陷入宣传争议 国家企业信用信息公示系统显示，西安彩虹星球文化科技有限公司成立于2015年，法定代表人为王来 库，是一家以从事科技推广和应用服务业为主的企业。彩虹星球以"专注食品安全的有机生鲜品牌"为宣 传定位。其网店中，多款产品名称都会注明"有机"字样。 2024年12月，彩虹星球官方发文称，已收到西安市雁塔区人民法院民事判决书。据其展示的民事判决 书，该案为西安彩虹星球文化科技有限公司与王海的侵权责任纠纷。 判决书显示，西安市雁塔区人民法院认为，"被告王海 ...

法院指出，唐某、吴某某虽系限制民事行为能力人，但已年满17周岁，对自身行为的违法性和法律后果具备认知 能力，知晓赔礼道歉的责任内容和法律意义，承担相应责任并未超出其承受能力，且能促使其充分反省，应承担 赔礼道歉责任。监护人未尽教育、约束职责，应依法承担赔礼道歉和经济赔偿责任。 南都此前报道，今年3月，一则"男子往海底捞锅底里撒尿"的视频引发广泛关注。据上海市公安局黄浦分局通报， 事发于2月24日凌晨，外省市来沪人员唐某（男、17岁）、吴某（男、17岁）等人进入该火锅店包间内用餐，唐 某、吴某两人醉酒后分别站上餐台向火锅内小便，吴某还将拍摄的视频发布在网上。警方已依法对唐某、吴某作 出行政拘留处罚。 针对男子在海底捞火锅锅底中小便一事，3月12日，南都记者从海底捞方面获悉，涉事人员并未在门店消费酒精类 饮品。对于涉案的两名男子，海底捞已向上海黄浦区法院提起民事诉讼申请。 两名17岁男子往海底捞火锅里小便案有了新进展。10月9日，南都N视频记者从最高人民法院获悉，人民法院判决 唐某及其父母、吴某某及其父母分别在指定报刊上向海底捞赔礼道歉；双方父母赔偿海底捞餐具损耗费、清洗消 毒费、经营损失、商誉损失等共计220万 ...

9月28日，扬子晚报紫牛新闻记者从周兆成律师处获悉，疯狂英语创始人李阳诉前妻名誉侵权案一审胜 诉。2021年，李阳前妻李某在微博发文控诉李阳家暴女儿，引发广泛关注。李阳将前妻及微博平台运营 方告上了法庭。2025年9月22日，北京互联网法院就该案做出一审判决，认定李某发布的言论侵害了李 阳的名誉权，判决其公开发布道歉声明72小时并赔偿精神损害抚慰金2万元。对此，李阳表示满意这个 结果，不上诉，将捐出赔偿金。 李阳诉前妻案一审胜诉： 判决书披露更多细节 李阳的代理律师周兆成告诉记者，2024年11月25日，李阳诉前妻李某网络侵权责任纠纷案在北京互联网 法院线下开庭，"我向法庭提交了40组证据，证明李阳并没有家暴女儿的行为。"庭审从当天14：30一直 持续到18：30，约4个小时。李阳妹妹以及两名员工作为证人出庭参与了庭审。网络平台方代理律师参 与庭审，提交了11组证据，以证明平台方不承担责任。开庭时，李阳和其前妻李某均没有出庭，法庭没 有当庭宣判。 2025年9月22日，该案迎来新进展。紫牛新闻记者从判决书中看到，李阳前妻李某在微博平台发布六篇 博文控诉李阳殴打女儿，除了文字描述外，还附有一段27秒的录音、女儿 ...

Group 1 - Zhang Xiaoling, a female lawyer, revealed that she was diagnosed with late-stage cancer after 10 years of health check-ups, which has attracted significant attention [1][4] - Aikang Guobin, the health check-up institution, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Zhang Xiaoling, seeking 10 million yuan in damages [1][4] - The Shanghai Pudong New District People's Court initially scheduled a hearing for September 11, 2025, but this was canceled due to Zhang's jurisdictional objection [1][4] Group 2 - Aikang Guobin claims that Zhang Xiaoling misrepresented her diagnosis timeline, stating she was diagnosed with early-stage kidney cancer a year after her check-up, while she alleged she was diagnosed with late-stage cancer in 2024 [4] - Aikang Group held a media briefing on July 30, confirming that there were no missed or misdiagnosed cases regarding Zhang's health check-up, emphasizing that a basic health check cannot guarantee the detection of all diseases [4][5] - Zhang Xiaoling has filed a request to transfer the case to the Beijing Internet Court, expressing her desire to prevent Aikang Guobin from withdrawing the lawsuit midway [4]

Core Points - A dispute arose over a 20 yuan unpaid bill at a fried chicken shop, with one party accusing the buyer of maliciously skipping payment, while the buyer claimed it was an unintentional oversight and sought an apology after making the payment [1][2] - The case was successfully mediated by the People's Court of Xinzheng City, where both parties reached an agreement after the judge's intervention [3] Summary by Sections Incident Overview - On May 29, 2024, a customer named Fan purchased food worth 20 yuan but failed to make the payment, leading the shop owner Yan to believe it was a deliberate act of skipping payment [1] - Yan shared surveillance footage in WeChat groups, which led to Fan feeling her privacy was violated and her reputation damaged [2] Legal Proceedings - Fan filed a lawsuit against Yan, seeking a public apology, cessation of the infringement, and compensation for emotional distress amounting to 10,000 yuan, along with legal fees [2] - During the court proceedings, both parties maintained their positions, with Fan asserting her forgetfulness and Yan insisting on the intentional nature of the act [2] Resolution - The judge facilitated a "back-to-back" mediation, resulting in Yan issuing a written apology to Fan, who then dropped her other legal claims, concluding the dispute amicably [3] Legal Insights - The judge highlighted the importance of distinguishing between unintentional mistakes and intentional acts of skipping payment, emphasizing the need for merchants to communicate politely with customers before escalating issues [4] - Merchants are advised to collect evidence and consider legal action only if necessary, while avoiding extreme measures that could lead to legal repercussions [4]