| In the smart TV business,the start-up advertising business model has become the first choice of most operators.Under this business model,operators can use additional advertising revenue to offset the cost of goods,so that their goods can enter the market at a more competitive price.Thanks to this,consumers can also enjoy better quality goods at lower prices.However,some consumers questioned this business model,thinking that the start-up advertisement "occupied the living room" and violated their own rights and interests.This article takes the "Le Eoc TV start-up advertisement case" as the starting point to explore how the multiplicity of operators’ identities affect consumer rights and operator obligations,and how the traditional consumer protection legislation adapt to this emerging business model.This case is one of typical cases of consumer associations announced by the China Consumers Association to maintain consumer fairness.The defendant in this case is a well-known brand in the smart TV market,and the commercial methods it adopted are relatively typical.This case well reflects the contradiction between consumers and start-up advertising operators.This article focuses on the analysis of the three focal points of controversy in this case.First,whether the start-up advertising business model violates consumers’ right to choose.This article summarizes the subjective and objective standards of violating consumers’ right to choose.By analyzing the characteristics of the start-up advertising business model and referring to the above two standards,this paper draws a conclusion: the start-up advertising business model does not constitute a violation of consumers’ right to choose.Second,whether the operator in this case has fully fulfilled the duty of disclosure.This article summarizes the standards of general business operators’ disclosure obligations,and analyzes them in detail in the context of display consumption scenarios.This paper sorts out the content of the notification obligation in the start-up advertising business model,and matches the necessary fulfillment methods according to the significance of its impact on consumer decision-making.Third,whether the operator in this case is obliged to provide the function of closing the advertisement immediately.Both the plaintiff and the defendant in this case admitted that the operator of the advertisement on startup has the obligation to provide the function of closing the advertisement,but the two parties have disputes over the time to realize this function.This article summarizes the purpose and content of the duty of restraint of the operator of start-up advertising from the perspective of different departmental laws,and analyzes the performance standards of the restraint obligation in combination with the common commercial means of operators under the mode of start-up advertising. |
