2月10日，米哈游发布公告，此前，米哈游聘任上海市汇业律师事务所(以下简称"汇业律所")为公司常 年法律顾问，由其为米哈游提供诉讼法律服务。 米哈游称，在汇业律所为米哈游提供法律服务期间，汇业律所管委会委员、高级合伙人周开畅律师在明 知代理远景公司诉讼案件涉及利益冲突的情况下，仍私自实施超出与远景公司法律顾问合同服务范围 的、指派实习律师吴某继续帮助远景公司收集、固定诉讼证据并提供给远景公司的行为，涉嫌违反律师 法的相关规定。 米哈游表示，鉴于上述侵害公司权益的情况，米哈游决定终止与上海市汇业律师事务所的一切合作关 系，停止委托其处理任何与米哈游相关的法律事务，同时，将上海市汇业律师事务所永久列入公司合作 方黑名单，永不合作。 专家说法：缘何被"解聘"？ 官方资料显示，汇业律师事务所创立于1999年，经过二十六年的发展，汇业聚焦商事法律服务等多重领 域，已成为中国领先的综合性律师事务所之一，现有执业律师和专业人员两千余名。 汇业的核心业务涵盖公司法、并购重组、外商投资、知识产权、反垄断、劳动与人力资源、金融证券、 破产清算及争议解决等领域，并在互联网科技、娱乐、能源与环保、医疗与健康等领域积累了丰富经 验，长 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of "胖东来" suing online defamer highlights the necessity of legal action against malicious online behavior to protect corporate reputation and maintain a healthy business environment [1] Group 1: Incident Overview - In March 2025, online influencer 柴怼怼 made defamatory remarks about "胖东来," claiming their jade products were of poor quality and overpriced, which quickly gained traction online [2][3] - The defamatory video attracted significant attention, leading to a surge in 柴怼怼's viewership and follower count [3] Group 2: Response from "胖东来" - In response to the malicious attacks, "胖东来" attempted to clarify its position by disclosing the sourcing, quality control processes, and pricing logic of its jade products [4] - Despite these efforts, misinformation continued to spread, damaging the company's reputation [4] Group 3: Legal Action - "胖东来" and its representative initiated a civil lawsuit against 柴怼怼 to hold them accountable for the defamatory statements, aiming to protect their brand integrity [7] - The court issued a preliminary ruling requiring 柴怼怼 to delete the defamatory video and cease further defamatory content [8] Group 4: Court Findings - The court found that 柴怼怼's statements were false and malicious, with the video accumulating over 7 million views, leading to significant public distrust towards "胖东来" [12] - The court ordered 柴怼怼 to stop the infringement, delete the video, publicly apologize, and pay damages totaling 2.6 million yuan [12] Group 5: Legal Implications - The case represents a significant step in addressing online defamation, with the court emphasizing the need to respect legitimate business operations while punishing malicious slander [14]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Gongniu Group and Jia's Electric reflects intense competition within the industry, with Jia's Electric challenging Gongniu's claims of market dominance and misleading advertising practices [2][8]. Group 1: Legal Dispute - Jia's Electric has filed a counterclaim against Gongniu Group in response to a lawsuit seeking 4.2 million yuan in damages, asserting that Gongniu's advertising is misleading [2][4]. - The legal conflict escalated from a public dispute over advertising claims, with Jia's Electric arguing that Gongniu's assertion that "7 out of 10 Chinese households use Gongniu" is inaccurate [5][8]. - Gongniu Group claims that Jia's Electric's social media posts have harmed its commercial reputation, leading to the legal action [4][5]. Group 2: Market Position and Competition - Gongniu Group holds a significant market share of 60% to 70% in the power strip sector, while Jia's Electric claims Gongniu's share in the wall switch socket market is around 30% [5][6]. - The competition has intensified as Gongniu has expanded into the wall switch socket market, impacting Jia's Electric's sales and market position [8][9]. - Jia's Electric's sales have reportedly declined significantly in 2024 and 2025, prompting the company to enhance its online marketing efforts to strengthen its brand presence [8][9]. Group 3: Financial Performance - Gongniu Group reported a revenue of approximately 12.2 billion yuan for the first three quarters of 2025, a decrease of 3.22% compared to the same period in 2024, with net profit down by 8.72% [9]. - The company is facing challenges in its traditional business while simultaneously developing new markets and products [9]. - Despite the financial pressures, Gongniu Group is adjusting its strategies to invest in new business opportunities, indicating a focus on long-term growth [9].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Gongniu Group and Jia's Electric reflects intense competition and industry challenges within the electrical appliance sector, particularly in the wall switch and socket market [2][6]. Group 1: Legal Dispute - Jia's Electric has filed a jurisdictional objection in response to Gongniu Group's lawsuit, while also counter-suing Gongniu Group [2]. - Gongniu Group claims that Jia's Electric's advertising misleads consumers, asserting that their slogan "7 out of 10 Chinese families use Gongniu" is misleading [2][4]. - Jia's Electric's founder, Kuang Jian, describes Gongniu's compensation demand of 4.2 million yuan as excessive and views the legal action as a challenge to be met head-on [2][3]. Group 2: Market Position and Competition - Gongniu Group holds a dominant market share of 60% to 70% in the power strip sector, while Jia's Electric focuses on wall switches and sockets [4]. - Kuang Jian argues that Gongniu's claim of widespread usage in the wall switch market is exaggerated, estimating Gongniu's actual market share in that segment to be around 30% [4][6]. - The competition has intensified since 2023, with Jia's Electric experiencing a significant sales decline due to Gongniu's aggressive market entry into the wall switch sector [6][7]. Group 3: Financial Performance - Gongniu Group reported a revenue of approximately 12.2 billion yuan for the first three quarters of 2025, a decrease of 3.22% compared to the same period in 2024, with a net profit of about 2.98 billion yuan, down 8.72% year-on-year [9]. - Despite facing challenges in traditional business areas, Gongniu Group is focusing on new business development and market expansion [9]. - Jia's Electric plans to expand its product line into the power strip market to counteract the competitive pressures and ensure survival in the industry [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - BYD has successfully sued automotive blogger Yao*qiang for defamation, resulting in a court ruling that requires Yao*qiang to compensate BYD 2.01 million yuan for spreading false information about the company's Fangchengbao vehicle [1][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The dispute originated from a vehicle review conducted by Yao*qiang after the launch of BYD's Fangchengbao model Leopard 5 in November 2023, where he claimed a fuel consumption of 18 liters per 100 kilometers, significantly higher than the official figure of 7.8 liters [3]. - Yao*qiang's review sparked public debate, with some netizens suggesting that the claimed fuel consumption was based on extreme driving conditions, including speeding [3]. Group 2: Evidence and Legal Proceedings - BYD collected data from the vehicle's backend, revealing that on the day of the test, the car exceeded 180 km/h on three segments and 170 km/h on six segments, contradicting Yao*qiang's claims of adhering to speed limits [3]. - Following the investigation, BYD filed a lawsuit on May 24, 2024, seeking a public apology and 5 million yuan in damages, although the video in question had already been removed from Yao*qiang's account [4]. Group 3: Company Stance and Previous Actions - BYD's public relations director reiterated the company's commitment to protecting its rights and mentioned a reward of up to 5 million yuan for information on malicious public relations activities [6]. - This lawsuit is not BYD's first action against online defamation; in November 2025, the company won a case against another account, resulting in a compensation of 313,800 yuan [6].

就比亚迪起诉姚*强（抖音账号"大秦军陕团"）一案，比亚迪坚持依托法律维护自身合法权益，并于近期公告案件胜诉。1月22日比亚迪法务部发布公告披 露，法院判决认定被告编造并传播了方程豹汽车的虚假信息，损害了比亚迪及方程豹品牌的商业信誉及商品声誉，构成商业诋毁。判令被告姚*强向比亚 迪公司赔偿201万元。随后，比亚迪集团品牌及公关处总经理李云飞转发该公告并表示："一直以来，我们都是黑公关黑水军的最大受害者！我们接受媒 体的批评和监督，但对于编造虚假信息、恶意造谣、诋毁攻击的黑公关和黑媒体，我们绝不容忍，一追到底，绝不姑息！" 此前在公开活动中，李云飞也曾明确立场："比亚迪到了现在的位置和体量，如果有媒体就客观事实进行报道批评，都没问题！有些媒体不了解情况，有 些误解性的发布，我们也能接受！但对于黑公关、黑媒体，为了黑而黑，长期针对比亚迪，诋毁比亚迪，我们绝不容忍！" 2023年12月，方程豹豹5上市之际，姚*强通过抖音账号"大秦军陕团"发布视频，声称以正常驾驶方式测试方程豹旗下车型豹5，得出百公里油耗18升的结 论，在网络上引起了大范围的关注及讨论。之后应警方调查取证需要，比亚迪调取数据显示：测试当日车辆存在大量异 ...

#博主编造虚假信息被判赔比亚迪201万#【比亚迪法务部：一汽车博主编造并传播方程豹汽车虚假信息 被判赔偿201万元 #李云飞回应比亚迪起诉汽车博主获赔201万#】1月22日，比亚迪法务部发文表示，就 比亚迪起诉汽车博主姚*强（抖音账号"大秦军陕团"）一案，公司近期收到法院一审判决，判决认定被 告编造并传播了方程豹汽车的虚假信息，损害了比亚迪及方程豹品牌的商业信誉及商品声誉，构成商业 诋毁。判令被告向比亚迪公司赔偿201万元。比亚迪方面表示，始终尊重并接受社会各界的建议和监 督，但网络不是法外之地，对于任何形式的侮辱、造谣、抹黑等侵权行为，将持续以法律手段维护企业 的合法权益。 比亚迪李云飞转发并回应称："一直以来，我们都是黑公关黑水军的最大受害者！我们接受媒体的批评 和监督，但对于编造虚假信息、恶意造谣、诋毁攻击的黑公关和黑媒体，我们绝不容忍，将一追到底， 绝不姑息！"（界面） 微博正文 我们始终尊重并接受社会各界的建议和监督,但网络 不是法外之地,对于任何形式的侮辱、造谣、抹黑等 侵权行为,我们将持续以法律手段维护企业的合法权 益。 感谢大家一直以来对比亚迪的关注和支持。 2 58 日 55 占 172 比 ...

1月22日消息，比亚迪法务部今日发文宣布，近期就比亚迪起诉汽车博主姚*强（抖音账号"大秦军陕 团"）一案，收到法院一审判决，判决认定被告编造并传播了方程豹汽车的虚假信息，损害了比亚迪及 方程豹品牌的商业信誉及商品声誉，构成商业诋毁。 判令被告向比亚迪公司赔偿201万元。 对此，比亚迪集团-品牌及公关处总经理李云飞转发微博表示，一直以来，我们都是黑公关黑水军的最 大受害者！我们接受媒体的批评和监督，但对于编造虚假信息、恶意造谣、诋毁攻击的黑公关和黑媒 体，我们绝不容忍，将一追到底，绝不姑息！ 责任编辑：李思阳 1月22日消息，比亚迪法务部今日发文宣布，近期就比亚迪起诉汽车博主姚*强（抖音账号"大秦军陕 团"）一案，收到法院一审判决，判决认定被告编造并传播了方程豹汽车的虚假信息，损害了比亚迪及 方程豹品牌的商业信誉及商品声誉，构成商业诋毁。 判令被告向比亚迪公司赔偿201万元。 对此，比亚迪集团-品牌及公关处总经理李云飞转发微博表示，一直以来，我们都是黑公关黑水军的最 大受害者！我们接受媒体的批评和监督，但对于编造虚假信息、恶意造谣、诋毁攻击的黑公关和黑媒 体，我们绝不容忍，将一追到底，绝不姑息！ 责任编辑：李思 ...

随后，比亚迪集团品牌及公关处总经理李云飞转发该公告并表示："一直以来，我们都是黑公关黑水军 的最大受害者！我们接受媒体的批评和监督，但对于编造虚假信息、恶意造谣、诋毁攻击的黑公关和黑 媒体，我们绝不容忍，将一追到底，绝不姑息！" 1月22日，比亚迪法务部官微发文表示，近期，就比亚迪起诉汽车博主姚*强（抖音账号"大秦军陕团"） 一案，公司收到法院一审判决，判决认定被告编造并传播了方程豹汽车的虚假信息，损害了比亚迪及方 程豹品牌的商业信誉及商品声誉，构成商业诋毁。判令被告向比亚迪公司赔偿201万元。 ...

Core Viewpoint - "Chai Dui Dui" was fined 250,000 yuan for commercial defamation by the Pingyang County Market Supervision Administration due to spreading false and misleading information about competitors [1] Group 1: Incident Details - On March 30, 2025, "Chai Dui Dui" disseminated fabricated and misleading information on online platforms, harming the commercial reputation and product image of competitors [1] - The actions of "Chai Dui Dui" violated Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (2019) [1] Group 2: Legal and Financial Consequences - The company was ordered to immediately cease illegal activities and eliminate the negative impact caused by its actions [1] - A fine of 250,000 yuan was imposed, which must be paid to the treasury within fifteen days of receiving the administrative penalty decision [1]