[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, streamers bear significant responsibility. Streamers who promote products by displaying bicycles in their live stream rooms and attracting viewers to place orders are legally recognized as e-commerce operators—they are responsible for the quality of the goods and the authenticity of the promotions. If they sell counterfeit goods, consumers can claim a refund of three times the purchase price (with a minimum of 500 yuan); the merchants (whether self-operated or brand owners) bear primary responsibility; and the platforms that fail to fulfill their obligations of qualification review and necessary management bear joint and several liability. The path to seeking justice: Claim compensation from all three parties simultaneously, with evidence including orders, live stream recordings, and appraisal reports.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

In the live-stream room, the host claims "identical to the ones in department stores, directly supplied from the factory", but the products delivered to buyers turn out to be counterfeit. The host shouts at the top of his lungs: "We'll compensate you tenfold for every fake item!" and "The lowest price online!" —— But when after-sales issues arise, the host shifts the blame to the merchant, and the merchant in turn blames the supply chain, leaving consumers exhausted from the blame-shifting game among the three parties. The judicial system has already provided a clear answer to the responsibility for counterfeit sales in live-streams: whoever promotes the products should bear the responsibility, and whoever benefits from them should be held jointly liable.

II. Key points of dispute

First, the identification of the streamer's operator status. Second, the applicable conditions of the "refund one and compensate three" policy. Third, the platform's responsibility boundaries. Fourth, the key points of evidence collection for consumers.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer concerns the determination of the broadcaster's responsibilities: Broadcasters are not simply "performers". Those who use platforms like Xiaohuangche to promote products, guide viewers to place orders, and collect commissions from transactions have been identified by courts as e-commerce operators, and they must be held accountable for the quality of the products sold and the authenticity of their promotions. Judicial precedents clarify that broadcasters who falsify brand information, misrepresent product specifications, or sell counterfeit phones by forging warranty and network access certificates must share liability with merchants for refunds and compensation of three times the purchase price. Broadcasters are classified into different types: self-operated broadcasters (who use their own accounts to sell goods) bear the greatest responsibility; commissioned broadcasters (who promote products for merchants and collect commissions) are liable for the authenticity of promotional content, and those who fail to verify product qualifications will be held jointly liable with merchants. Purely sharing content without promotional links carries the least responsibility, but the boundary between "sharing" and "selling" is determined by the actual transaction model. The second layer concerns the application of the "refund and compensation of three times the purchase price" mechanism: If operators provide fraudulent products, consumers can claim triple compensation, with a minimum of 500 yuan. Fraudulent acts include: knowing the products are counterfeit but promoting them as genuine (by falsifying brand, material, or specification information); forging authorization and inspection documents; and using deceptive marketing terms such as "identical to department store products", "official authentic products", or "fake-free guarantee". Screenshots are key evidence for proving false advertising. High-value products require prior authentication—appraisal reports for luxury goods, gold, and electronics serve as technical support for fraud determination. The third layer focuses on platform responsibilities: Platforms bear joint liability for consumer harm caused by failing to verify qualifications (e.g., food and cosmetics licenses) and failing to take timely measures (such as removing products or suspending accounts) to prevent losses from expanding. Platform compensation mechanisms and deposit systems are the fastest channels for consumer refunds—first filing complaints with the platform to freeze the merchant's deposit, then pursuing litigation. The fourth layer outlines consumer evidence collection and litigation pathways: Order information (platform records and payment receipts); live stream evidence (recording the ordering period with product display and promotional content); product evidence (physical goods, packaging, appraisal reports); and litigation order: platform complaint (refund and compensation first) → market supervision complaint (12315) → civil litigation (naming both merchant and broadcaster, seeking refunds and reasonable expenses). Small claims can follow platform mechanisms, while collective complaints may trigger administrative investigations for mass counterfeit cases (e.g., multiple fake products in the same live stream). The fifth layer provides reminders for compliant broadcasters: Written product review procedures (including qualifications, authorizations, and testing reports); compliance redlines for promotional language (no absolute claims, no exaggerated effects or identities); live stream record archiving (evidence of promotional authenticity); and clear division of responsibilities between broadcaster agencies (MCNs) and broadcasters through internal agreements while maintaining joint liability externally—selling products carries risks, and product selection is risk management. Beijing's developed internet economy has matured in handling live-stream counterfeiting cases, with stable judicial logic recognizing "live stream operators as business entities". Compliance costs for broadcasters cannot be compromised.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to record the screen: fully record the live chat script and trailer information during the ordering period. The second step is to conduct appraisal: use the appraisal report of counterfeit high-value goods to support the determination of fraud. The third step is to pursue rights protection in a tiered manner: the platform handles complaints and provides advance compensation, and then litigates against the merchants and streamers to determine their joint liability. The fourth step is to monitor the subjects: confirm the real identity information of the streamers and merchants (disclosed by the platform) and list all the defendants. The main legal basis: Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, and Articles 9 and 38 of the E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three key points in dealing with live-streaming fraud: 1. The streamer is responsible for the quality and marketing of the products they promote. 2. For fraudulent cases, the platform applies a "one refund for every three orders" policy, with screen recordings and appraisals serving as the core evidence. 3. The platform bears joint responsibility for inadequate review processes. Victims should first file a complaint with the platform before initiating legal action. For assistance with protecting rights against live-streaming fraud, please contactIntellectual property protection and corporate lawThe service provides a comprehensive solution, which can be combined with the brand owner's efforts to combat counterfeiting and protect their rights.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor reference, you can check the sections related to cross-border e-commerce and foreign-related products\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesFor reference, you can check the sections related to the protection of rights and the notarization of evidence in the documentSpecialised legal services板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: The streamer said that the goods are shipped by the merchant. Who should I contact if I receive a counterfeit product?

Both parties can make claims. The streamers who charge commissions from trailers are identified as e-commerce operators and share responsibility with merchants.

Q2: How is the "return one and get three in compensation" policy calculated?

Return the payment and compensate three times the price of the goods. If the amount is less than 500 yuan, it shall be calculated according to 500 yuan.

Q3: What should I do if there's no replay in the live stream room and I have no evidence?

It's crucial to record the screen when placing an order. For those who haven't recorded the screen, they can retrieve the order snapshot, promotional pages, and combine them with the actual product to provide evidence.

Q4: Does the platform compensate first?

The platform has a pre-payment and deposit mechanism. If the complaint is valid, the platform will refund the money as soon as possible and then seek compensation from the merchant.

Q5: If the streamer says that he/she was also deceived, can he/she be exempt from liability?

It's not a complete exemption from liability. If the merchant promotes the product without verifying its qualifications, they will bear joint and several liability with the seller. It's the streamer's obligation to review the product's quality before promoting it.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglu Law Firm about specific situations.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media that have been publicly released. They are unrelated to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.](2025) No. 2734 of the Civil Court of Appeal of Inner Mongolia in May
[Trial Court]The Intermediate People's Court of Tongliao City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
[Judicial Summary]In the case of Bai * et al. v. Chen *, the anchor promoted fake mobile phones in the live stream room by displaying "Little Yellow Bike" and guiding viewers to click to place orders. The anchor fabricated brand names, specifications, and warranties, and forged network access licenses. The court determined that the anchor, who used "Little Yellow Bike" to attract traffic and complete transactions for profit, was an e-commerce operator and was responsible for product quality and the authenticity of promotional information. The court ordered the anchor to refund the purchase price and pay three times the amount as compensation, and the second-instance court upheld this judgment.
[Source]Law and Order Daily (Tongliao Intermediate Court's Judgment) (2026-09)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Fusui County, Guangxi Province
[Judicial Summary]In the case of Wei v. the merchant: The plaintiff purchased a ring marked as 999 pure gold for 949 yuan in the live-streaming room, but the test showed that the silver content exceeded the gold content. The court ruled that the merchant intentionally misled consumers into placing orders by providing false information, constituting fraud. According to the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, the court ordered the merchant to refund the purchase price and pay three times the amount, totaling 3,796 yuan, as compensation.
[Source]China Court Online (2025-08)

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on currently effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.