Research on Platform Operators' “Assumption of Corresponding Responsibilities”

Abstract

The ambiguity in paragraph 2 of Section 38 of the Electronic Commerce Law regarding the liability of e-commerce service providers for non-compliance has led to persistent disputes in academic and practical circles. This paper explores what constitutes a more reasonable corresponding liability for platform operators. Theoretically, two major approaches exist: one advocates for a multi-faceted liability framework by comparing the platform with its internal operational conduct, while the other proposes a single, clearly defined liability. It is submitted that the non-compliance of the online trading platform with its review obligations cannot be regarded as active conduct for the purposes of joint and several liability. Rather, it can be considered passive inaction. Conversely, the single liability view seeks to define the liability type from multiple perspectives. In judicial practice, due to the difficulty of proving platform operators' fault in reality, courts generally tend to mitigate their liability. Overall, after analyzing differing perspectives in theory and practice, the author argues that interpreting platform operators' “bearing corresponding liability” as supplementary liability is more reasonable.