Man Who Bought Counterfeit "Feitian Moutai" for 1490 Yuan Online Receives 10x Compensation from Beijing Court!

According to the official WeChat account “Jingfa Net News” on March 14, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court recently announced a verdict in a case involving the sale of fake “Feitian Moutai” liquor.

On January 20, 2025, Gao purchased a 500ml bottle of 53-degree Feitian Moutai white liquor from a shop operated by a certain company on an online platform. The listed price was 1,490 yuan, but the actual payment was 1,474.89 yuan, with the transaction page marked “Genuine Product Guarantee.” The next day, after receiving the product, Gao found something unusual and applied for a liquor appraisal service. Staff from Beijing Moutai Tower Liquor Appraisal Center informed him that the purchased Moutai was counterfeit. After failing to reach a settlement with the company regarding compensation, Gao sued the Beijing Internet Court, demanding a refund of 1,490 yuan and compensation of 14,900 yuan, among other claims.

The company argued that Gao did not provide an unboxing video of the product, making it impossible to prove that the counterfeit liquor was sold by the company. They claimed that compensation for food products must be based on actual damages. Since Gao did not drink the liquor and no actual loss was caused, he should not receive ten times the compensation.

During the first trial, Gao requested and the court organized a re-examination by professionals from Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. They issued a “Product Identification (Appraisal) Report,” confirming that the liquor in question was not produced or packaged by the company and was a counterfeit product. The court held that the staff from Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. conducted an on-site appraisal and found that the product’s packaging did not match the company’s standard features, indicating it was not produced or packaged by the company. Therefore, the product did not meet the “Genuine Product Guarantee” claim made by the company and was a counterfeit pre-packaged food that did not comply with food safety standards. As a food operator, the company failed to provide evidence that the source of the counterfeit food was legal and did not fulfill its obligation to verify the source of goods. This constituted knowingly selling non-compliant food. The court ordered the company to refund Gao and pay ten times the punitive damages.

Unhappy with the ruling, the company appealed to the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court. After review, the court believed that, according to the relevant provisions of the “Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the facts in civil litigation must be proven to a high degree of probability. In this case, Gao had submitted screenshots of the order, payment proof, logistics information, and receipt records, establishing initial evidence. The company argued that Gao did not provide an unboxing video and that there was a possibility of tampering. However, since the appraisal report detailed the product’s serial code information, which is unique and traceable, and the company failed to provide inventory records or batch information to refute this, their defense was merely subjective speculation. In an online transaction environment, the seller controls evidence related to the source, storage, and shipment of goods. The company’s mere suspicion of tampering was insufficient to deny the transaction. Although Gao did not provide an unboxing video, the overall evidence strongly suggested that the product was sold by the company. The court upheld the first-instance judgment after adjusting the standards for refund and punitive damages.

Editor: Xie Ke
Reviewer: Du Haifeng, Chen Jie