Workflow
职业索赔人
icon
Search documents
当面包过期两天
Hu Xiu· 2025-05-19 05:38
Core Points - The article discusses the challenges faced by small shop owners in complying with food safety regulations and the implications of selling expired products [1][2][3] - It highlights the leniency shown by regulatory authorities towards first-time offenders under certain conditions, reflecting a shift in enforcement practices [20][21] Group 1: Case of Zhang Junxian - Zhang Junxian, a 63-year-old shop owner, faced an investigation for selling expired bread, which was reported by a customer [3][4] - The expired bread had a net weight of 80 grams, with a purchase price of 7.5 yuan and a selling price of 8 yuan, indicating the small profit margins typical for small retailers [4][6] - The investigation revealed that Zhang had not properly checked the expiration date due to oversight, which is a common issue among small shop owners [6][8] Group 2: Regulatory Environment - The current Food Safety Law, enacted in 2009 and revised in 2015, emphasizes strict enforcement and penalties for violations, aiming to maintain food safety standards [7][8] - Regulatory officials, while tasked with enforcing the law, often express empathy towards small business owners, recognizing the difficulties they face [8][15] - The recent introduction of a "first violation no penalty" policy allows for leniency in cases where the violation is minor and the offender is cooperative [20][21] Group 3: Broader Implications - The article also touches on the issue of "professional claimants" who exploit food safety regulations for financial gain, complicating the landscape for small retailers [16][19] - The case of another shop owner, Gan Aixia, illustrates the challenges faced by small businesses in maintaining compliance, especially when unexpected hardships arise [10][15] - The regulatory approach is evolving, with discussions around providing more support and understanding for small business owners, reflecting a balance between enforcement and compassion [21][22]
6888元带你“打假赚钱” 一年投诉3000次,职业打假人“吹哨”还是“碰瓷”
3 6 Ke· 2025-05-15 11:40
Core Viewpoint - The phenomenon of "professional counterfeiters" in China is evolving, with some individuals shifting from legitimate consumer protection roles to exploitative practices for personal gain, leading to significant controversy and debate about their impact on market regulation and consumer rights [1][20][21]. Group 1: Evolution of Professional Counterfeiters - The number of "professional counterfeiters" has significantly increased over the past 30 years, particularly following the enhancement of consumer protection laws in China [1][3]. - Some individuals, such as Z, have been reported to file thousands of complaints, often targeting small businesses and exploiting minor labeling issues to demand high compensation [3][4][7]. - The emergence of "professional claimants" has led to a chain-like trend where individuals sell courses on how to effectively file complaints and claims, indicating a shift towards a more organized and profit-driven approach [2][16][17]. Group 2: Impact on Businesses - Many small businesses, particularly in the beauty and food sectors, have faced repeated complaints from "professional counterfeiters," leading to closures and significant financial losses [4][7][18]. - The complaints often focus on non-substantive issues such as labeling and packaging, diverting regulatory attention from more serious consumer safety concerns [19][21]. - The financial burden on businesses is exacerbated by the high costs associated with resolving these complaints, often resulting in settlements that can reach thousands of yuan [8][14][18]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Responses - There is a growing recognition of the need to differentiate between legitimate consumer protection efforts and exploitative practices, with some regions implementing regulations to curb "malicious complaints" [22][23][24]. - Recent legal interpretations emphasize that claims should be based on genuine consumer needs, and excessive or repetitive complaints may be classified as abuse of legal processes [22][24]. - The trend towards leniency in penalties for minor labeling violations reflects an effort to reduce the burden on businesses while still maintaining consumer protection standards [23][27].