[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over online infringement liability. In March 2024, when plaintiff Xiao Wei was using the workplace social platform operated by B Technology Company, she was deceived by an account with the platform's blue V real-name authentication and a false job title, and was redirected to a third-party software, where she was defrauded of 542,782 yuan. Xiao Wei entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.文品良The lawyer filed a lawsuit, claiming that Company B committed online infringement due to loopholes in the certification review process. The core disputes include whether the platform was at fault, whether there is a causal relationship between the fault and the damage, and the proportion of compensation. The applicable legal provisions are Article 1165 of the Civil Code and Article 24 of the Cybersecurity Law. The A Internet Court determined that there was a causal relationship between the platform's review loopholes and the fraud, and awarded Company B a compensation of 5% of the total loss, amounting to 17,500 yuan, breaking the traditional practice of exempting platforms from liability for formal review.

I. Review of the Case Facts

In March 2024, the plaintiff, Xiao Wei, was added as a friend by the account "Tianya" while using the workplace-oriented social platform NZ operated by B Technology Company. The account carried the platform's blue V real-name authentication badge, indicating that the user was the regional financial manager of C Investment Co., Ltd. with 11 years of work experience. Trusting the platform's authentication system, Xiao Wei let down her guard and was lured to a third-party chat software, where she was deceived into transferring a total of 542,782 yuan to a fraudulent investment platform eight times under the guise of high-yield financial management. Subsequently, it was discovered that the Tianya real-name authentication had stolen someone else's ID photo, and the job title was entirely fabricated. The fraudsters had registered the account with an overseas phone number. Xiao Wei entrusted Henglue Law Firm to handle the case for her.Wen Pinliang is a talented writer who has achieved great success in literary creation.The lawyer team filed a lawsuit, claiming that Company B committed online infringement due to loopholes in the platform's review process.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether Company B is at fault.The real-name authentication did not use face recognition, the overseas numbers were not dynamically verified, and the professional certification contract lacked core content such as salary clauses, failing to fulfill its obligation of exercising reasonable caution.
  • Focus Two: Whether there is a causal relationship between the fault and the damage.The plaintiff invested and suffered losses based on the trust placed in the platform's certification marks, and there is a causal relationship between the platform's vulnerabilities and the damages suffered.
  • Focus 3: The amount of compensation and the proportion of liability.The plaintiff himself did not pay enough attention to the investment risks and should bear the main responsibility, while the platform should bear a corresponding proportion of the responsibility.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The client (Xiao Wei) alleged that:Xiao Wei demanded that Company B compensate for all or part of the losses she suffered from the authentication loophole, claiming that the platform's failure to fulfill its review obligations constituted online infringement.

The defendant's (Company B) position:Company B argued that it had fulfilled its obligation to ensure safety, conducted a formal review, provided risk warnings in the chat, and suspended the account after the incident. The fraud occurred on a third-party platform, and the plaintiff should bear the risk themselves. Moreover, this practice is in line with industry norms.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:Wen Pinliang is a talented writer who has written many excellent works.The lawyer presented evidence: the real-name authentication is a formality, as the platform does not use real-time shooting and face recognition, and fails to verify the connection between overseas phone numbers and the actual users; the professional certification contract only has the first and last pages, without a stamp on the fold, and lacks core content, making the review a formality; although the platform warns of the risks of leaving the platform, it fails to alert users about the possible falsity of the authentication information during the certification process, and cannot exempt itself from liability; and cites other platforms that require face recognition to prove that Platform B has obvious flaws. In response to the defendant's defense of industry practices, the lawyer pointed out that holding ID card photos is an important supplementary operation after real-name authentication on other platforms, which is not equivalent to real-name authentication, and the gap between Platform B and other platforms is obvious.

IV. Outcome of the case

The Internet Court ruled that the platform should bear responsibility for the authentication loopholes. Firstly, the platform failed to conduct dynamic verification for overseas number bindings and abnormal logins during real-name authentication, and did not detect obvious flaws in the professional certification process, thus failing to fulfill its obligation of reasonable caution and negligence, and the fault was established. Secondly, the plaintiff relied on the platform's authentication logo to trust the identity of the fraudster and subsequently suffered investment losses, and the causal relationship was established. Thirdly, the plaintiff himself failed to pay sufficient attention to the risks and should bear the main responsibility. The court determined that Company B should compensate for the losses of 5% of the total amount, which is 17,500 yuan. The judgment is based on Article 116 of the Civil Code and Article 24 of the Cybersecurity Law. Company B shall compensate 17,500 yuan within seven days.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.文品良The lawyer (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Online platforms cannot simply satisfy formal review. The certification logo is not only a sign of trust but also a point of responsibility. When users encounter similar fraud caused by platform certification vulnerabilities, they should pay attention to saving the certification page, chat and transfer records, and entrust professional lawyers to claim the platform's responsibility for failing to fulfill its obligation of ensuring security.

VI. Common Questions and FAQs about Platform Certification Loopholes Leading to Fraud and Legal Protection

  1. Q: If I'm cheated by a certified online scammer, can I sue the platform?
    A:Possibly. If there are obvious loopholes in the platform's real-name or professional certification, or if the platform fails to fulfill its obligation of reasonable caution and there is a causal relationship with the damage, the victim can claim for online infringement and require the platform to assume responsibility.
  2. Q: If the platform says it has provided risk warnings, can it be exempt from liability?
    A:No. Only in the chat interface, the platform warns users about the risks of leaving the platform, but it fails to alert them that the authentication information might be false during the authentication process. This warning fails to effectively prevent harm and cannot be used as a defense against liability.
  3. Q: Is it enough for the platform to only conduct a formal review?
    A:That's not enough. For real-name authentication, methods such as face recognition and dynamic verification should be adopted. For professional certification, complete materials should be reviewed. If there are loopholes in the formal review alone, the platform may be held liable for any resulting issues.
  4. Q: How much will the platform compensate for the amount of money I was scammed for?
    A:According to the proportion of faults on both sides. The user himself/herself bears the main responsibility for not paying sufficient attention to the risks, and the platform shall bear a corresponding proportion of the liability. In this case, the court determined that the platform's liability should be 5%.
  5. Q: How to collect evidence when being scammed online?
    A:Save screenshots of the platform's authentication page, the blue V logo, chat records, transfer receipts, and police reports, etc., to prove that the trust in the authentication has been damaged, making it easier to claim the platform's responsibility.