转自：法治日报 综上，法院依照《中华人民共和国民法典》《中华人民共和国食品安全法》《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》等有关规定，酌定被告按原告损失的三倍进行赔 偿，判决被告胡光退还原告王浩货款2960元，并支付赔偿金8880元。 法官提醒： 法律保护消费者的合法权益，但是不鼓励以牟利为目的的"知假买假"行为。职业打假人以牟利为目的， 利用自身经验，购买明知存在问题的商品并索赔，其行为逐利性明显，在司法实践中，对于认定为超 出"合理生活消费需要范围"的部分，不适用惩罚性赔偿。 法律倡导生产经营者依法规范经营，消费者理性维权。消费者如遇到制假售假行为，应通过保留购物凭 证、向监管部门投诉、提起诉讼等合法途径解决问题，在维护自身权益的同时需要兼顾诚信原则，切勿 滥用权利，商家也应合规生产经营，共同维护良好的市场秩序。 明知是假货仍"知假买假"，还索要十倍赔偿。近日，内蒙古自治区乌海市海勃湾区人民法院审结一起买 卖纠纷。 王浩（化名）在胡光（化名）经营的超市先后购买了4瓶酒，共计支付货款2960元。收货后，王浩以酒 水做工粗糙、质感异常，疑似假冒伪劣产品为由，向市场监督管理局投 ...

Core Points - The Beijing Xicheng District People's Court announced typical cases to implement the Private Economy Promotion Law, highlighting a case involving a consumer's "knowing purchase of fake goods" claim [1][2] - The court ruled against the consumer's request for punitive damages, emphasizing the need to balance consumer rights and business interests [2] Group 1 - The court found that the consumer's actions exceeded reasonable consumption needs and violated the principle of good faith, leading to the rejection of the punitive compensation request [1] - The consumer had previously filed over 70 similar lawsuits against various supermarkets since 2016, indicating a pattern of behavior aimed at exploiting the system [1] - The court determined that although the supermarket failed to check the expiration dates of products, the consumer knowingly purchased expired goods, which was deemed an attempt to gain excessive benefits through repeated breaches [1] Group 2 - The judge emphasized the importance of distinguishing between legitimate rights protection and malicious claims, aiming to prevent the abuse of punitive compensation systems that could disrupt normal business operations [2] - The case strictly adhered to the Supreme Court's interpretations regarding punitive compensation disputes in food and drug cases, reinforcing legal standards [2]

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].