[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 purchase price (for fraud) and a ten-fold compensation for counterfeit food and drugs; live streamers — those who recommend and sell goods in their own name, who are jointly liable with the merchants; self-operated platforms or platforms that cannot provide genuine 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 measures) shall bear corresponding responsibilities; the order of rights protection: first, seek compensation from the merchants according to the "one-third compensation for each counterfeit item"; if the platform fails to take action, the platform shall also be sued — the platform liability provisions of the E-commerce Law are 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" is loudly shouted, but when the customer receives the goods, they find it's a knockoff. When they complain to the live streamer, the streamer says, "I'm just a salesperson"; when they contact the platform, the platform says, "The merchant's actions have nothing to do with us" — the three parties are passing the buck. Who should 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 streamers. 3. The platform's obligations of review and disposal. 4. The provision of evidence 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 "refunding one and compensating three" for counterfeit goods (Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law) and "refunding one and compensating ten" for food products (Food Safety Law), which is a fallback responsibility; live streamers—in online live-stream marketing, live streamers who recommend and certify products in their own names ("I use it myself" or "the brand asked me to endorse it") bear joint liability with merchants; live streamers are just employees who "read the script according to the script", and the responsibility reverts to merchants and MCNs; platforms—for self-operated products, merchants bear responsibility; for third-party merchants' products, if the platform can provide the merchant's real name, address, and valid contact information, consumers should seek compensation from the merchant; if not, the platform shall make advance compensation; if the platform knows or should know about counterfeit goods and fails to take necessary measures, it shall bear joint liability with merchants. The second layer is the identification points of live streamers' joint liability: - Record of guarantee-style rhetoric—live stream replays and clips of "refunding one and compensating ten", "official authorization", and "I guarantee the quality"; - Relationship between the live streamer's account and the merchant—if the same entity operates both (the account entity is the store entity), the merchant shall be directly treated as a seller; - Role of MCN agencies—the agreement between the agency and the live streamer is an internal relationship, and consumers can list them as defendants together; the more subjects involved, the stronger the protection; - Short preservation period of live stream replays (most platforms retain replays for about seven days), and the first step of safeguarding rights is to record the live stream rhetoric. The third layer is the obligations and accountability of platforms: - Pre-event obligations—verifying merchant qualifications (business license, brand authorization) and conducting product sampling; - In-event obligations—accepting and handling complaints (removing products and restricting stores after receiving counterfeit complaints); - Post-event responsibilities—advance compensation for refusing to provide merchant information, and joint liability for knowing about counterfeit goods but failing to take measures. - Practical measures: Submit a complaint to the platform with written records (ticket number, processing time), and record the platform's delay or "evading responsibility" as evidence of its liability; cross-platform price comparisons and appraisal reports (official brand appraisals, third-party appraisal institutions) are dual ammunitions for complaints and litigation. The fourth layer is the pace of evidence collection and rights protection: - Proof of counterfeit goods—brand-issued appraisal conclusions (highest legal effect), comparison records with physical stores, third-party testing (material composition), and detailed comparison with genuine products; - Transaction evidence—orders, payment records, live stream replays, and product page snapshots (retain promotional rhetoric like "official direct supply"—the argument of "seven-day no-reason return does not apply to counterfeit goods" is a merchant's ploy; the right to return goods due to quality issues exists independently); - Pacing design: Parallel applications for "seven-day no-reason return" and counterfeit refunds (the claim that "seven-day no-reason return does not apply to counterfeit goods" is a merchant's ploy; the right to return goods due to quality issues exists independently); 12315 complaints against merchants and platforms followed by secondary complaints; direct litigation against merchants, live streamers, and platforms when the amount is large; - Finally, the temptation of "lowest price online" in live stream rooms is positively correlated with the probability of counterfeit goods. For brands with prices significantly lower than those in physical stores (over 30%), verify the authenticity before placing an order.

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 of three times the purchase price from the merchant and hold the live streamer accountable for their guarantee statements. The third step is to document the platform's delay or refusal to provide the merchant's information and 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 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 "Regulations on Online Live Stream Marketing"; specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

There are three key points to live-stream shopping: the first responsibility for counterfeit goods lies with the merchants, and the refund policy of "refund once and compensate three times" is the bottom line; the live streamer's guarantee speech implies joint and several liability, and the playback clips serve as evidence; if the platform refuses to provide merchant information, it should make advance compensation, and only when all three parties file a lawsuit together can the platform avoid shirking responsibility. For those involved in live-stream shopping rights protection, they can seek help through the following channels:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesYou can combine the claims related to consumer fraud with the overall solution provided by the service.Special services and other casesFor more information on combating brand counterfeiting, please refer to the relevant section.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor any questions regarding difficult situations, please feel free to consult us.Special 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 and guaranteed by oneself shall bear joint and several liability; the returning merchants and institutions who strictly follow the script to deliver the speech shall bear corresponding responsibilities, and the recorded script of the speech shall be the key evidence for determining the liability.

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 fails to 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 seek legal protection 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 fake goods?

For ordinary commodity fraud, the compensation is one refund for every three items; for food counterfeits, the compensation is one refund for every ten items; and for live-stream rooms that promise a refund of ten times the price for each counterfeit item, consumers can claim higher compensation in accordance with the promise made by the platform.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current 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. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.