The Form Of Responsibility Of E-commerce Platform Operators For Violating The Security Obligations

The vigorous development of information networks and e-commerce economy is profoundly changing human production,life,and socio-economic development.The following not only brings prosperity to emerging markets,but also challenges to the existing economic order and legal system.The most obvious is the frequent occurrence of various e-commerce platform operators infringing on consumer rights,which has triggered many social problems.Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly stipulates for the first time that e-commerce platform operators must bear “corresponding responsibilities” if they fail to fulfill their security obligations.This helps to implement the legal responsibility of e-commerce platform operators,thereby strengthening the protection of consumers.Unfortunately,this statement is too vague and fails to clarify whether “corresponding responsibilities” are a single form of responsibility or multiple forms of responsibility that need to be distinguished in different situations.Tracing back to the source,the biggest controversy in several reviews of this law is the responsibility of e-commerce platform operators for violating their security obligations.Faced with serious differences of opinion among all parties,the legislative body ultimately chose to adopt a vague approach,defining Article 38(2)as“corresponding responsibility”.The overly general legal provisions have increased the difficulty of understanding and application in judicial practice,resulting in different judgments in the same case.The different handling of similar cases to some extent reflects deviations in the understanding of the breadth and depth of “corresponding responsibilities”.The understanding of responsibility in academia roughly divided into two types: the theory of single responsibility and the theory of multiple responsibilities.In summary,there is significant controversy in both the practical and theoretical fields regarding the understanding of liability forms.From a long-term perspective,this is not conducive to the healthy development of e-commerce platforms,nor is it conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.In view of this,the article intends to conduct research from the following aspects.Firstly,sample analysis will be conducted on cases involving Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law in the judicial documents,and differences in judicial determination will be summarized,including the basis of the judgment is inconsistent,ambiguous definition of the scope of security obligations,and unclear forms of tort liability for violating security obligations.Secondly,it is a systematic interpretation of Article 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law,as the different application of the judgment basis directly affects the determination of the form of responsibility.This section interprets it from two dimensions: external relationship analysis and internal relationship coordination.Thirdly,elaborate on the scope of the security obligations of e-commerce platform operators.Clarifying the scope of security obligations is a prerequisite for determining whether and what kind of infringement liability they bear in the future.This part consists of two aspects.First,it summarizes the disputes over the scope of safety protection obligations of ecommerce platform operators.Second,it defines the scope of safety protection obligations of e-commerce platform operators.Then,it is the determination of the“corresponding responsibility” for e-commerce platform operators violating their security obligations.After sorting out the legislative evolution and theoretical differences,a detailed analysis is conducted on the single responsibility theory and the multiple responsibility theory,and the factors that should be considered in determining the responsibility form are summarized.Finally,there is a path to improve the liability of ecommerce platform operators for violating security obligations.The countermeasures are proposed from two aspects,legislative improvement and judicial norms.