2026.01. 08 本文字数：893，阅读时长大约2分钟 肇事者父母称：" 作为监护人，我们对于孩子做出的不当行为深表歉意！对判决结果没有异议，今后 一定引以为戒，加强对孩子的教育，引导他成长为一名行为规范的好公民。" 此前报道—— 2025年3月，一条海底捞火锅店内有人"向火锅小便"的短视频引发广泛关注。上海黄浦警方对涉案 的唐某（男，17岁）和吴某（男，17岁）作出行政拘留处罚。 同年9月12日， 上海市黄浦区人民法院 对原告四川某餐饮管理集团有限公司（以下简称四川某餐饮 公司）、上海某餐饮管理有限公司（以下简称上海某餐饮公司）与被告唐某、吴某及唐某父母、吴某 父母名誉权纠纷、财产损害赔偿纠纷案作出一审宣判。 法院判决唐某及其父母、吴某及其父母在保护未成年人隐私的情况下，分别在指定报刊上向四川某餐 饮公司、上海某餐饮公司赔礼道歉；唐某父母、吴某父母赔偿上海某餐饮公司餐具损耗费和清洗消毒 费13万元，赔偿四川某餐饮公司、上海某餐饮公司经营损失和商誉损失200万元及维权开支7万元， 共计220万元（唐某、吴某有个人财产的，从本人财产中支付赔偿费用，不足部分由唐某父母、吴某 父母赔偿）。 1月8日，" 海底 ...

每经编辑｜何小桃 2026年1月8日，《人民法院报》3版刊登了海底捞小便当事人唐某及其父母的道歉声明。 唐某在道歉声明中称，"我深刻认识到自己的错误行为，在此向四川新派餐饮管理集团有限公司、上海捞派餐饮管理有限公司表示真诚的歉意。我也接受 到了来自家长、学校、公安、法院，以及网络广大消费者的批评与教育，我会吸取深刻的教训，改过自新。" 人民法院报电子版截图 以下是致歉声明原文： 2025年2月24日凌晨，唐某、吴某于酒后到餐厅用餐，用餐过程中实施不当行为且吴某将拍摄的视频发布在网上，严重侵害了餐厅的合法权益。后经上海 市黄浦区人民法院审理，并作出（2025）沪0101民初9213号民事判决书，判令本人及监护人进行赔礼道歉以及赔偿餐具损耗费、清洗消毒费、经营损失及 商誉损失、维权开支若干。现判决书已生效，我深刻认识到自己的错误行为，在此向四川新派餐饮管理集团有限公司、上海捞派餐饮管理有限公司表示真 诚的歉意。我也接受到了来自家长、学校、公安、法院，以及网络广大消费者的批评与教育，我会吸取深刻的教训，改过自新。长大后，我要努力成为一 位对家庭，对国家，对社会有担当的人。作为监护人，我们对于孩子做出的不当行为深表歉 ...

近日，上海市青浦区人民法院出具的一则限制消费令显示，特斯拉"车顶维权"女车主张亚周被法院采取 限制消费措施。原因为张亚周未按执行通知书指定的期间履行生效法律文书确定的给付义务，申请人为 特斯拉（上海）有限公司。案件流程显示，今年8月，张亚周被申请执行约17.23万元。 12月30日，张亚周就此事向南都记者表示，"我也是刚看到这个消息，名誉权的案件，我本人已经向上 海高院申请再审了。" 南都记者注意到，张亚周与特斯拉还有另一起纠纷案件。今年9月，针对张亚周诉特斯拉买卖合同纠纷 一案，北京市大兴区人民法院一审判决责令特斯拉向其提供事故前半小时的完整行车数据。法院认定这 有助于辅助其全面分析涉案车辆该时间段内的整体情况，应当认定为消费者知情权范畴，具有合理性和 必要性。 针对该案，12月30日，张亚周告诉南都记者，"特斯拉方面已经上诉，目前二审正在进行中。等二审判 决结果出来以后，将一并处理。" 12月31日，针对被法院限制高消费一事，特斯拉"车顶维权"当事人张亚周告诉南都N视频记者，"相应 的赔偿款会尽快按程序付给法院。"南都此前报道，今年7月，其与特斯拉的名誉权纠纷案迎来二审判 决，张亚周被法院认定侵犯特斯拉名 ...

新京报贝壳财经讯（记者俞金旻）近日，上海市青浦区人民法院出具的一则限制消费令显示，特斯拉"车顶维 权"女车主张女士被法院采取限制消费措施。原因为张女士未按执行通知书指定的期间履行生效法律文书确定的 给付义务，申请人为特斯拉（上海）有限公司。案件流程显示，今年8月，张女士被申请执行约17.23万元。 上海市青浦区人民法院 限制消费令 据此前报道，2021年4月19日上海车展媒体日首日，特斯拉车主张女士在车展现场爬上一辆特斯拉展车车顶，大 呼"特斯拉刹车失灵"，随后被保安带走。当天，上海警方以扰乱公共秩序为由对张女士处以行政拘留五日。 2021年2月，特斯拉车主张女士的父亲驾驶特斯拉发生追尾事故后，持续要求特斯拉提供完整行车数据被拒。交 警认定张女士的父亲负事故全责，但其家人认为事故原因是刹车失灵。 2021年10月，特斯拉（上海）有限公司起诉张女士，指控其在上海车展上的"车顶维权"行为侵犯了公司的名誉 权，并索赔500万元。经过4年审理，2025年7月11日，上海市二中院作出二审判决，维持原判，认定张女士侵犯 特斯拉名誉权，需向特斯拉赔礼道歉并赔偿约17万元。 如违反限制消费令,经查证属实的,本院将依照《中华人 ...

近日，特斯拉（上海）有限公司与张亚周名誉权纠纷案有了新进展。据了解，张亚周被限制高消费，申 请人为特斯拉（上海）有限公司。12月30日，张亚周告诉南都N视频记者，"我也是刚看到这个消息， 名誉权的案件，我本人已经向上海高院申请再审了。" 南都此前报道，2021年4月19日，张亚周在上海车展爬上特斯拉车顶大喊"刹车失灵"维权。同年9月，特 斯拉起诉张亚周车顶维权行为侵犯其名誉权，并赔偿因此事给特斯拉造成的直接财产损失"暂计500万 元"。 今年7月，相关案件迎来二审判决，张亚周被法院认定侵犯特斯拉名誉权，应向特斯拉赔礼道歉并赔偿 17万元。 12月30日，张亚周就此事向南都记者表示，"我也是刚看到这个消息，名誉权的案件，我本人已经向上 海高院申请再审了。" 南都记者注意到，张亚周与特斯拉还有另一起纠纷案件。今年9月，针对张亚周诉特斯拉买卖合同纠纷 一案，北京市大兴区人民法院一审判决责令特斯拉向其提供事故前半小时的完整行车数据。法院认定这 有助于辅助其全面分析涉案车辆该时间段内的整体情况，应当认定为消费者知情权范畴，具有合理性和 必要性。 针对该案，12月30日，张亚周告诉南都记者，"特斯拉方面已经上诉，目前二审 ...

近日，上海市青浦区人民法院出具的一则限制消费令显示，特斯拉"车顶维权"女车主张女士被法院采取限制消费措施。 原因为张女士未按执行通知书指定的期间履行生效法律文书确定的给付义务，申请人为特斯拉（上海）有限公司。案件流程显示，今年8月，张女士被申 请执行约17.23万元。 | 2025-08-13 · 被执行人 | 被执行人:张某 | 执行标的：172,275.00元 | | --- | --- | --- | | 2025-12-19 · 限制消费令 | 被执行人:张某 | | 张女士是上海车展特斯拉车顶维权女车主。2021年4月19日上海车展媒体日首日，她爬上了一辆特斯拉展车车顶，大呼"特斯拉刹车失灵"，随后被保安带 走。当天，上海警方以扰乱公共秩序为由对张女士处以行政拘留五日。 她自2021年2月父亲驾驶特斯拉发生追尾事故后，持续要求特斯拉提供完整行车数据却屡遭拒绝。交警认定张女士的父亲负事故全责，但其家人认为事故 原因是刹车失灵。 2021年10月，特斯拉（上海）有限公司起诉张女士，指控其在上海车展上的"车顶维权"行为侵犯了公司的名誉权，并索赔500万元。经过4年审理，2025年 7月11日，上海市二中院 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Qicai Chemical (七彩化学) has filed a lawsuit against Xianiko Chemical (先尼科化工) and its legal representative for defamation, seeking a public apology and compensation of 53.31 million yuan due to ongoing intellectual property disputes [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Disputes - The lawsuit stems from a series of intellectual property litigations lasting nearly three years between Qicai Chemical and Xianiko Chemical [1]. - In December 2022, Xianiko Chemical filed a lawsuit claiming Qicai Chemical infringed on its commercial secrets related to specific pigments and production technology, initially seeking over 200 million yuan in damages [1]. - After Qicai Chemical requested judicial appraisal, Xianiko Chemical withdrew the lawsuit in January 2024 without reason [1]. Group 2: Allegations and Counterclaims - Qicai Chemical has indicated that Xianiko Chemical has repeatedly altered its claims for damages, ranging from 470,000 yuan to 400 million yuan, without providing complete evidence [2]. - The case has traversed through various courts, including the High Court and Intellectual Property Court, with Qicai Chemical asserting that the technologies in question have long been public knowledge due to expired patents [2]. - Qicai Chemical has accused Xianiko Chemical of illegal production practices, including exceeding environmental assessment limits and failing to properly dispose of hazardous waste, which poses ecological risks [2]. Group 3: Impact on Reputation - The malicious litigation from Xianiko Chemical has led to significant negative publicity for Qicai Chemical, severely damaging its reputation as a publicly listed company [2]. - The case is still pending court hearings, with further developments expected to be disclosed [2].

Core Viewpoint - Longxin Zhongke has won a defamation lawsuit against Shanghai Xinlianxin Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., with the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court upholding the original ruling that requires Shanghai Xinlianxin to issue a public apology and compensate Longxin Zhongke for economic losses [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Longxin Zhongke initiated a civil lawsuit against Shanghai Xinlianxin, seeking a clarification, apology, and compensation for economic losses due to false statements made by Shanghai Xinlianxin [3]. - The first-instance judgment by the Beijing Internet Court ordered Shanghai Xinlianxin to publish an apology on its website for ten consecutive days and to pay Longxin Zhongke 450,000 yuan in damages [3]. - The appeal by Shanghai Xinlianxin was rejected by the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court, which confirmed the original court's findings and legal application [3]. Group 2: Company Position and Industry Context - Longxin Zhongke emphasized that the case is crucial for clarifying false statements and restoring its reputation, which is important for protecting the legitimate rights of the company and its partners [3]. - The company aims to foster a more regulated and orderly industry discourse environment and signals its commitment to legal rights protection and brand maintenance [3]. - The increase in defamation cases in the tech industry highlights the importance of judicial rulings in clarifying responsibilities and reinforcing compliance expectations, although litigation can incur time and resource costs [4]. Group 3: Financial Performance - For the first three quarters of 2025, Longxin Zhongke reported revenues of 351 million yuan and a net loss of 394 million yuan, indicating ongoing financial challenges [4]. - The company continues to invest in product research and ecosystem development while pursuing compliance and brand protection strategies [4]. - Future performance will depend on product competitiveness, ecosystem expansion, and market development progress, with investors advised to consider the actual impact of short-term litigation on the company's fundamentals [4].

Core Viewpoint - The dispute between former Hubei billionaire Lan Shili and Jinlongyu (Golden Dragon Fish) has escalated from a defamation case into a complex legal battle involving execution procedures and public statements [3][25]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - The conflict originated from a video posted by Lan Shili in July 2024, where he accused Jinlongyu of improper practices, claiming that the company lost 650 billion in two days and should be the first to delist [3][4]. - Jinlongyu's parent company, Yihai Kerry, sued Lan for defamation, leading to a court ruling that found Lan guilty of infringement, requiring him to apologize and pay 30,700 yuan [8][9]. Group 2: Developments in the Legal Proceedings - On November 20, 2025, Lan held a press conference claiming that despite transferring 100,000 yuan to Jinlongyu, his account was still frozen due to the company's application for enforcement [4][6]. - Yihai Kerry stated that the enforcement was lawful, as Lan did not comply with the court's ruling in a timely manner, and they later returned the excess payment of 69,300 yuan after unfreezing his account [9][11]. Group 3: Public Statements and Reactions - Both parties have issued conflicting statements, with Jinlongyu accusing Lan of spreading false information regarding the refund and account status, while Lan insists that he fulfilled his payment obligations [7][10]. - Lan provided evidence of his payment and claimed that the enforcement action taken by Jinlongyu was unjustified, suggesting that the company concealed the receipt of his payment [14][22]. Group 4: Legal Implications and Future Actions - The case has raised questions about the execution of court orders, particularly regarding the distinction between monetary compensation and the obligation to apologize [24][25]. - Lan has indicated plans to appeal to the Shanghai High Court, suggesting that the legal battle is far from over [25].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Lan Shili, a former billionaire from Hubei, and Jinlongyu (Golden Dragon Fish) has escalated from a defamation case into a complex legal battle involving execution procedures and public statements [2][28]. Group 1: Incident Background - The conflict began in July 2024 when Lan Shili posted a video claiming that Jinlongyu was using oil tankers to transport cooking oil, leading to a significant drop in the company's market value by 650 billion [2][3]. - Jinlongyu's parent company, Yihai Kerry, filed a lawsuit against Lan for defamation, resulting in a court ruling that mandated Lan to apologize and pay 30,700 yuan [3][8]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Statements - Following the court's decision, Lan Shili claimed to have transferred 100,000 yuan to Jinlongyu, but the company still sought enforcement of the judgment, freezing his accounts [5][6]. - Yihai Kerry issued a statement asserting that the execution process was lawful and that Lan had not complied with the court's order in a timely manner, leading to the account freeze [11][12]. Group 3: Discrepancies and Reactions - Both parties have made conflicting statements regarding the execution of the court's ruling, with Lan accusing Jinlongyu of deceit and Yihai Kerry denying any wrongdoing [9][25]. - Legal experts noted that the case involves two types of obligations: monetary compensation and the act of public apology, suggesting that the freezing of assets may not be a standard response for failure to apologize [27][28]. Group 4: Future Developments - Lan Shili plans to appeal to the Shanghai High People's Court, indicating that the dispute is far from resolved and may continue to attract public and legal scrutiny [28].