Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released five typical civil cases related to online consumer issues, focusing on live marketing fraud, seven-day no-reason return disputes, misleading promotional rules, ambiguous standard terms, and excessive personal information collection [1][6] - In the live marketing sector, a case highlighted false advertising where a merchant misrepresented the material of a product, leading to a court ruling that enforced the merchant's commitment to a "tenfold compensation" promise [3] - The seven-day no-reason return policy was reinforced in a case where a consumer was denied a return; the court ruled that merchants cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of "non-returnable" items, thus protecting consumer rights [3] Group 2 - The fairness and transparency of promotional rules were scrutinized in a case where a furniture company misled consumers regarding a discount offer, resulting in a court ruling that mandated the return of half the payment to the consumer [5] - In a ticket refund dispute, the court emphasized that ambiguous terms should be interpreted in favor of consumers, leading to a ruling that required a ticketing platform to refund the remaining ticket price [5] - The judicial ruling on excessive personal information collection highlighted that an app's collection practices exceeded necessary limits, resulting in a court order for the deletion of user information and compensation for damages [5][6] Group 3 - The release of these typical cases aims to clarify online consumer rules, sanction illegal behaviors of operators, and guide consumers in protecting their rights [6] - The judicial authority will continue to monitor new issues in online consumption to support the healthy development of the digital economy and enhance consumer confidence [6]

Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of online consumption necessitates improvements in consumer protection and the regulation of online marketing practices, particularly in live-streaming sales and promotional activities [1][2][3]. Group 1: Online Retail Growth - In 2024, China's online retail sales reached 15,522.5 billion yuan, a 7.2% increase from the previous year, with physical goods accounting for 13,081.6 billion yuan, growing by 6.5% and representing 26.8% of total retail sales [1]. - Online consumption has become a significant method for consumers, highlighting the need for enhanced consumer rights protection [1]. Group 2: Legal Cases in Online Marketing - A case involving a seller who misrepresented the material of a product during a live-stream led to a court ruling that the seller must honor a "fake one pays ten" guarantee, emphasizing the importance of truthful advertising in live-streaming [2][3]. - Another case highlighted the responsibilities of businesses during promotional activities, where misleading information led to a ruling against a furniture company for not properly informing a customer about promotional conditions [4]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Return Policies - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is a critical consumer right in online shopping, with legal backing to ensure its enforcement [5][6]. - Courts have ruled against sellers who attempt to deny this right through vague or misleading terms, reinforcing the legal obligation to allow returns unless explicitly justified [6][7]. Group 4: Privacy and Data Protection - Issues surrounding privacy policies in apps, including forced consent and excessive data collection, have raised significant legal concerns, leading to court rulings that protect consumer rights against overreach by service providers [9][10][11]. - A recent case resulted in a ruling that a company must delete unlawfully collected personal information and compensate the consumer, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal data rights [11][12].

新京报讯（记者行海洋）6月16日，最高人民法院发布网络消费民事典型案例。马某与某公司个人信息 保护纠纷案明确，网络服务提供者过度收集消费者个人信息，应承担侵权责任。 案情显示，某公司系某词典App的开发者和运营者。马某下载后使用该App时，系统提示用户需阅读隐 私政策。隐私政策中载明需要收集电话号码等个人信息。若用户在未实际阅读的情况下点击手机屏幕其 他位置，该提示内容即消失并自动勾选"已阅读并同意隐私政策"选项，且勾选后没有撤回同意的途径。 若用户点击拒绝，则该App自动退出，不向用户提供任何服务。 审理法院认为，网络服务提供者应基于个人同意处理个人信息，其预先拟定的有关个人信息收集和使用 的协议应使个人充分知情，并自愿、明确作出同意。该App的基本功能为词汇查询，用户的手机号码并 非使用词汇查询功能所必需的信息，故某公司存在过度收集用户信息的行为。 该App自动为用户勾选同意隐私政策，未依法保障用户在充分知情的情况下自主作出同意；其在用户拒 绝同意隐私政策的情况下直接退出，不提供查词服务，属于拒绝提供基本服务；其未向用户提供便捷的 撤回同意的方式。某公司的上述行为违反个人信息保护法第十五条、第十六条规定， ...