Who is responsible for consumers’ wallets when live-streaming goods are frequently overturned-

In a recent episode of “News 1+1,” host Dong Qian connected with Chen Yinjing, deputy secretary-general of the Consumer Rights Protection Law Research Association of the Chinese Law Society, and Ma Liang, a researcher at the National Development and Strategic Research Institute of Renmin University of China, to discuss the troubling prevalence of false advertising in live-stream shopping.

**What’s Behind the Rising Issue of False Advertising?**

Chen Yinjing pointed out that false advertising has become a significant concern in the world of live-stream shopping. “On one hand,” he explained, “advertising plays a crucial role in this format. Unlike traditional retail or e-commerce, where consumers can browse and choose their products, live-stream shopping relies heavily on the host’s promotional efforts for purchasing decisions.”

He further noted that current regulations primarily draw upon the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for general oversight, which does not impose the same stringent standards as traditional advertising regulations. “To fix this problem, we need to enhance supervision and refine the legal framework,” Chen emphasized, calling for clearer definitions of hosts’ legal responsibilities and more specific guidelines for identifying and penalizing violations.

**How Should We Manage the Chaos in Live-Stream Shopping?**

Ma Liang shared his insights on the chaotic nature of live-stream shopping, highlighting the role of professional whistleblowers in revealing these issues. “We rarely see government bodies proactively disclosing cases; they mostly react to reports,” he noted, indicating significant challenges in regulation, given the fast-paced and dynamic nature of the industry.

He elaborated on the three main challenges:
1. **Newness**: The industry is still evolving, and existing regulations have not kept pace.
2. **Speed**: Live streaming provides real-time interaction, making it hard to retain evidence and increasing impulsive buying behavior.
3. **Chaos**: The diversity of hosts and the complex supply chain complicate accountability and oversight.

Furthermore, Ma stressed the evident gap in government regulation and called for authorities to take a more active role in identifying and addressing these problems before they escalate.

**Do Hosts Bear Responsibility for the Products They Sell?**

According to Ma, many online hosts often try to absolve themselves of responsibility, claiming they are merely promoting products. “However, their benefits should be balanced by corresponding responsibilities,” he argued. “Consumers expect hosts to provide reliable information, and when problems arise, they naturally want to know what accountability the host holds.”

He highlighted that hosts must possess the ability to vet products effectively and ensure they meet consumer expectations. “It’s unreasonable for hosts to escape responsibility simply due to a lack of competence. This kind of argument disregards consumer trust and responsibility.”

**What Responsibilities Do Live Streaming Platforms Have?**

Ma also affirmed that platforms must accept their share of responsibility, though he stressed that this accountability requires further discussion and clarification. “Regardless of the sales channel, the fundamental concern should always be product quality. If substandard products reach the market, the focus should be on how they evaded safety checks in the first place.”

In closing, Ma emphasized the need for vigilance from the onset of product production to ensure consumer safety, regardless of whether the products are sold through live streams or physical stores.