新京报讯（记者吴梦真）9月25日，北京市西城区人民法院联合西城区工商业联合会召开新闻通报会， 发布一批贯彻落实民营经济促进法的典型案例。新京报记者了解到，针对一起消费者 "知假买假" 索赔 案，法院审理认定该行为超出合理消费需求，违背诚信原则，未支持其惩罚性赔偿请求。 新京报记者了解到，该案原告在某超市门店购买一瓶酸奶并支付货款8.5元。购买时产品已经超过30天 保质期。原告起诉超市门店，要求门店顶格赔偿1000元并返还货款。 法官表示，司法需要在维护消费者权益与保护经营者利益中间找到动态的平衡点，该案严格落实《最高 人民法院关于审理食品药品惩罚性赔偿纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》，准确区分正当维权与恶意 索赔，依法惩治以"知假买假"为手段的索赔行为，有利于防止恶意利用惩罚性赔偿制度，损害正常经营 秩序。 超市门店认为，原告与他人事先合谋购买过期酸奶。两人在同一天一共购买9瓶酸奶，分别结账但都全 程录像，最后共同向门店提出索赔。超市门店提供的监控视频证实，二人确实在同一时空存在行动高度 协同的现象。 此外，根据关联案件的检索结果，该原告自2016年起对多家超市门店提起类似诉讼70余件。法院最终认 定，虽然超 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the ongoing issue of counterfeit alcohol in the market and the legal implications of "knowing purchase of counterfeit" behavior, particularly in the context of seeking punitive damages for such purchases [1][4][7]. Group 1: Case Details - The plaintiff, Jin, purchased 12 bottles of a well-known brand of liquor for a total of 13,200 yuan, later discovering that 8 of the bottles were counterfeit [2]. - Jin initially sought a refund and tenfold compensation amounting to 132,000 yuan but adjusted the claim to 88,000 yuan after the court confirmed the authenticity of 4 bottles [2][6]. - The court ruled that Jin's purchase of 2 bottles was within the reasonable consumption range, allowing for punitive damages of 22,000 yuan for those bottles [6]. Group 2: Legal Framework - The court acknowledged that the law does not prohibit "knowing purchase of counterfeit" behavior, which can help identify illegal activities in the market [4][7]. - The Supreme Court's regulations allow for punitive damages if the buyer is aware of the product's counterfeit nature, provided the claim is within reasonable consumption limits [4][8]. - The ruling emphasizes that while consumers have rights to seek damages, the legal system does not encourage profit-driven "knowing purchase" actions [7][8]. Group 3: Consumer Behavior and Market Impact - Jin's purchasing behavior was deemed atypical for an ordinary consumer, raising questions about the intent behind the purchase [3]. - The case reflects broader concerns about malicious high compensation claims and the need for regulations to prevent abuse of the punitive damages system [8]. - The ruling aims to balance consumer rights with the need to maintain market integrity and discourage exploitative practices [7][8].