在直播带货这一新兴商业模式中,法律规制面临消费者权益保护和行业健康发展的重要挑战。主播的注意义务规定不明确与举证责任分配困境共同导致直播带货责任体系存在责任与控制力的错配、私益与公益错配、技术红利与治理成本错配三大核...在直播带货这一新兴商业模式中,法律规制面临消费者权益保护和行业健康发展的重要挑战。主播的注意义务规定不明确与举证责任分配困境共同导致直播带货责任体系存在责任与控制力的错配、私益与公益错配、技术红利与治理成本错配三大核心矛盾。针对主播注意义务的动态调适,建立“注意义务三阶模型”,并结合“动态清单模式”提升规制的精细化程度;同时通过举证责任的合理转移和场景化规制的创新,能够更有效地应对直播带货的复杂特性。法律规制需要在技术创新与制度创新的双轮驱动下,强化消费者保护机制,实现法治化、技术化与社会化相结合的治理格局,为直播带货行业的可持续发展提供制度保障。In the emerging business model of livestream e-commerce, legal regulation faces significant challenges in protecting consumer rights and promoting the healthy development of the industry. The unclear duty of care for hosts and the difficulties in burden of proof distribution jointly create three core contradictions in the livestream e-commerce liability system: misalignment between responsibility and control, private interests and public interests, and technology dividends and governance costs. To address the dynamic adjustment of hosts’ duty of care, a “Three-Stage Model of Duty of Care” is established, complemented by a “Dynamic Checklist Model” to enhance the refinement of regulation. Additionally, the reasonable shifting of the burden of proof and the innovation of scenario-based regulation can more effectively address the complex nature of livestream e-commerce. Legal regulation requires the dual-drive of technological innovation and institutional innovation to strengthen consumer protection mechanisms, achieve a governance framework that integrates rule of law, technology, and socialization, and provide institutional safeguards for the sustainable development of the livestream e-commerce industry.展开更多
文摘在直播带货这一新兴商业模式中,法律规制面临消费者权益保护和行业健康发展的重要挑战。主播的注意义务规定不明确与举证责任分配困境共同导致直播带货责任体系存在责任与控制力的错配、私益与公益错配、技术红利与治理成本错配三大核心矛盾。针对主播注意义务的动态调适,建立“注意义务三阶模型”,并结合“动态清单模式”提升规制的精细化程度;同时通过举证责任的合理转移和场景化规制的创新,能够更有效地应对直播带货的复杂特性。法律规制需要在技术创新与制度创新的双轮驱动下,强化消费者保护机制,实现法治化、技术化与社会化相结合的治理格局,为直播带货行业的可持续发展提供制度保障。In the emerging business model of livestream e-commerce, legal regulation faces significant challenges in protecting consumer rights and promoting the healthy development of the industry. The unclear duty of care for hosts and the difficulties in burden of proof distribution jointly create three core contradictions in the livestream e-commerce liability system: misalignment between responsibility and control, private interests and public interests, and technology dividends and governance costs. To address the dynamic adjustment of hosts’ duty of care, a “Three-Stage Model of Duty of Care” is established, complemented by a “Dynamic Checklist Model” to enhance the refinement of regulation. Additionally, the reasonable shifting of the burden of proof and the innovation of scenario-based regulation can more effectively address the complex nature of livestream e-commerce. Legal regulation requires the dual-drive of technological innovation and institutional innovation to strengthen consumer protection mechanisms, achieve a governance framework that integrates rule of law, technology, and socialization, and provide institutional safeguards for the sustainable development of the livestream e-commerce industry.
