FlagshipCPL map
Ch.1 ChannelGT vs CBEC
Ch.2 PunitiveFSL 148 / CPL 55
Ch.3 FraudClaimants
Ch.4 DigitalAlgorithm / PIPL
Ch.5 AdsAbsolute terms
Ch.6 Prepaid2025 interp.
Ch.7 12315SAMR SOP
Ch.8 Indemnity3-phase plan
Direct answer
Ordinary defects are Art. 24: repair, replace, or refund. Fraud needs (1) false statement or material omission, (2) materiality to the purchase, (3) reliance/causation. Concealment counts (SPC Guiding Case No. 17 — “new car” with hidden pre-delivery repair). After 2024, courts curb high-volume commercial claiming by tying punitive damages to reasonable personal consumption — but they still refund non-compliant goods.
At-a-glance: two civil routes
| Art. 24 quality | Art. 55 fraud | |
|---|---|---|
| Mental state | Not required | Intentional misrep or concealment |
| Remedy | Repair / replace / refund | 3× price (min. 500) |
| Defence focus | Performance, use, modification | No deception; no reliance; not a consumer |
Scope / legal framework
CPL Art. 55. Fraudulent consumer transactions: triple purchase price, not less than RMB 500.
SPC Guiding Case No. 17 (Zhang v. Beijing Auto). Concealing material repair history that drives the purchase is fraud.
Practical workflow
- Preserve pre-sale chats, images, and shipping records (knowledge of the condition kills “mistaken belief”).
- In the answer period, pull China Judgement Online history for templated volume suits.
- Plead: not a consumer acting for personal needs; no deception; alternatively Art. 24 only.
- Still offer statutory refund if the SKU is non-compliant.
Common mistakes
- CS writing “we admit fraud.”
- Ignoring plaintiff serial-litigation evidence.
- Thinking a professional claimant loses even on unsafe food — they may still get FSL 148.
Action checklist
- ☐ Evidence pack per order
- ☐ Litigation-history exhibit template
- ☐ Four-layer answer (see 12315 chapter)
