[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the investigation is conducted in three layers: merchants (operators of live-stream rooms or shops) — the first responsible party for counterfeit goods, with a minimum compensation of one-third of the price (for fraud) and ten times the price for counterfeit food and drugs; live streamers — those who recommend and sell goods under their own names, and are jointly liable with the merchants; self-operated platforms or platforms that cannot provide authentic information about the merchants — the platforms bear responsibility; platforms that fail to fulfill their obligations of qualification review and safety assurance (knowingly not dealing with counterfeit goods or having ineffective risk control mechanisms) bear corresponding responsibilities; the order of rights protection: first seek compensation of one-third of the price from the merchants, and if the platform fails to take action, sue the platform as well — the platform liability provisions of the E-commerce Law are specifically designed for such situations.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In the live stream room, the slogan "directly supplied by the brand, the same style as the department store" was shouted loudly, but when the consumers received the goods, they found that they were counterfeit products. When they complained to the live streamer, the streamer said, "I am just a promoter." When they complained to the platform, the platform said, "The merchant's behavior has nothing to do with us." All three parties are passing the buck. Who should the consumers complain to?

II. Key points of contention

1. The responsibility structure of the three-tier main body. 2. The joint and several liability of live streamers. 3. The platform's obligations of review and handling. 4. The evidence collection and appraisal of counterfeit goods.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer is the logic of three-tier responsibilities: - Merchants - Sellers bear the responsibility of "one refund for every three purchases" for counterfeit goods (Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law) and "one refund for every ten purchases" for food products (Food Safety Law), which is a residual liability. - Livestreamers - In online live-stream marketing, livestreamers who recommend and endorse products in their own name (e.g., "I personally use it" or "the brand asked me to vouch for it") share joint liability with merchants. - Livestreamers who simply read scripts are employees of the platform, and liability reverts to the merchant and MCN agency. - Platforms - Platforms handle self-operated products as merchants' responsibility; for third-party merchants, if the platform can provide the merchant's real name, address, and valid contact information, consumers should pursue claims against the merchant; if not, the platform must compensate first. Platforms are jointly liable with merchants if they know or should have known about counterfeit goods but fail to take necessary measures. The second layer focuses on identifying the livestreamers' joint liability: - Recorded guarantees - Livestream replays and clips containing statements like "one refund for every ten purchases," "official authorization," or "I guarantee quality." - Relationship between livestreamer accounts and merchants - Directly treating merchants as sellers if the account and store are operated by the same entity. - Role of MCN agencies - Agreements between agencies and livestreamers are internal relations, so consumers can list them as defendants. The more parties involved, the stronger the protection. - Short preservation period for livestream replays (most platforms retain them for about seven days), making screen recording critical for preserving evidence. The third layer outlines platform obligations and accountability: - Preventive obligations - Merchant qualification verification (business license, brand authorization), product sampling. - Ongoing obligations - Complaint handling (removing products, restricting stores after complaints). - Residual liability - Platforms must compensate first if they refuse to provide merchant information, and share joint liability if they knowingly fail to address counterfeit goods. - Practical tips: - Record complaints with platform tickets (case number, processing timeline). - Cross-platform price comparisons and appraisal reports (official brand appraisals, third-party labs) serve as dual evidence for complaints and litigation. The fourth layer focuses on evidence collection and litigation timing: - Proving counterfeit goods - Brand-issued appraisal reports (highest legal authority), store comparison records, third-party testing (material composition), and detailed comparison with authentic products. - Transaction evidence - Orders, payment records, livestream replays, product page snapshots (retain promotional claims like "official direct supply"). - Strategic timing: - Parallel applications for "seven-day no-reason refund" and counterfeit refunds (platform's "seven-day limit" argument is merchant rhetoric; independent right to return defective products). - Submit 12315 complaints against merchants and platform for delayed responses, or directly sue all parties involved in large-scale cases. - Finally, avoid "lowest price online" scams in livestream rooms, which correlate positively with counterfeit risk. Verify prices significantly lower than offline stores to avoid fraud.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to inspect the goods upon receipt and retain the live stream playback, page snapshots, and evidence for comparison and verification. The second step is to first demand a refund and three times the compensation from the merchant, and to hold the live streamer accountable for their guarantee statements. The third step is to document any platform delays or refusals to provide merchant information, and to demand advance compensation. The fourth step is to sue all three parties involved if the amount involved is large or the number of victims is significant, and to file an administrative report simultaneously. Main legal basis: Articles 44 and 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 38 of the E-commerce Law, Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, and the Measures for the Management of Online Live Stream Marketing. Specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

Three key points of live-stream shopping: The first responsibility for counterfeit goods lies with the merchant, and the policy of "refund once and compensate three times" is the bottom line; the host's guarantee speech implies joint liability, and the replay clips serve as evidence; if the platform refuses to provide the merchant's information, it should make advance compensation first, and only when all three parties file a lawsuit together will the platform not shirk its responsibilities. Those involved in protecting their rights in live-stream shopping can do so through the following channels:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesThe service provides a comprehensive solution, which can be combined with claims involving consumer fraud.Special services and other casesFor more information on combating brand counterfeiting, please refer to the relevant sections.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor any questions regarding difficult situations, you can seek advice from the columnSpecial services and other casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the streamer says they're just an employee, do they still need to take responsibility?

The streamers recommended by oneself who act as guarantors shall bear joint and several liabilities; the returning merchants and institutions who strictly follow the script to deliver the speech shall bear corresponding responsibilities, and the script records shall be the key evidence for identifying the responsibilities.

Q2: Where can I get a brand authentication done?

The brand's official after-sales or customer service channels will issue an appraisal conclusion, supplemented by a comparison with the counter and third-party testing; third-party appraisal institutions for luxury goods can also be used.

Q3: What should I do if the platform says the merchant can't be contacted?

If the platform cannot provide the merchant's real information, the platform shall make compensation first. Keep a good record of requesting the merchant's information in writing, and if the merchant refuses to provide the information, the platform shall trigger the obligation to make compensation.

Q4: Can I still protect my rights if the live stream replay has expired?

Yes; the page snapshot at the time of placing the order, the order and chat records, and the physical identification of the goods still constitute a chain of evidence. The lack of playback weakens the verbal evidence but does not affect the identification of counterfeit goods.

Q5: Can I demand compensation of ten times the price of the counterfeit product?

For ordinary commodity fraud, the compensation is one refund for every three products; for fake food, the compensation is one refund for every ten products; and for live-stream rooms that promise a 10-fold compensation for every fake product, consumers can claim higher compensation according to the promise made by the live-stream room.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available 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.