网络消费者知情权的法律保护研究

发布时间：2018-05-05 02:31

本文选题：网络消费 + 知情权　；参考：《广西师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：伴随着时代的发展和进步,网络消费逐渐成为大众瞩目的焦点,尤其成为了年轻人不可或缺的消费模式。消费者通过网络平台选择购买属意的商品和服务,从原则上讲,网络经营者应及时准确地发布商品与服务的信息、店铺信息等等,为消费者提供购买商品的有利依凭,即消费者有知情权:首先,知情权是消费活动展开的前提。消费者在对商品和服务的功能、作用等内容有了初步的了解之后,才能做出判断,选择与自己消费需要吻合的商品。可见,知情权是消费活动的开端,很好地连接了商品的使用价值与消费者需求。其次,在网络交易过程中,知情权的实现是交易公平公正的前提。它给予消费者时间和机会去了解商品与服务的详细信息,保证了消费者在交易中的主动权,更利于交易条件的公平,公正;再次,消费者要想获得安全和保障,知情权是必要条件。然而,由于网络的虚拟性和非现场型,使得网络交易中的消费者无法与经营者面对面,这就给经营者侵犯网络消费者的知情权提供了可乘之机。虚假宣传(具体表现为以假充真、以次充好,以虚假的“优惠价”“最低价”“甩卖价”“清仓价”销售商品等情形)、商家信用度造假(经营者故意在网上提供虚假的自身信息、夸大自身实力,或直接冒充知名商家)、不履行或不完全履行告知义务(故意遗漏重要信息,以规避告知义务;通过设置障碍使商品与服务的信息获取途径复杂化,将告知义务进行规避;设置繁复的格式合同,以规避告知义务)等侵犯网络消费者知情权的表现层出不穷,完全违背了三大信息不对称理论、诚实信用原则和公平原则以及权利义务对等原则。信息不对称理论认为,网络消费者,相对于经营者来说,处于弱势地位,信息的获取渠道有限。诚实信用原则,要求网络消费者的知情权得以保护,以求公平。权利和义务是对等的,保护网络消费者的知情权也是其要求之所在。不断涌现的侵犯网络消费者知情权的行为,日益引起我国诸多学者的关注和重视。一方面,他们致力于研究具有代表性国家(美国、日本和韩国)在关于网络消费者知情权保护方面积累的有益经验,为我国提供借鉴:一要在立法方面下功夫,强化立法;二要增强经营者交易前的披露义务;三将网络交易的特征作为法律修改考量标准。在保护网络消费者知情权方面,美国、日本和韩国等国家走在国际社会的前端,取其精华和弃其糟粕是我国保护网络消费者知情权的必然选择。另一方面,他们深入分析我国网络交易中消费者知情权遭受侵害的表现及原因,以求为保护网络消费者的知情权尽一份心力。本文以网络消费者知情权的释义为切入口。梳理了网络消费者、消费者知情权等概念,便于对网络消费者知情权的厘定,即消费者在通过互联网渠道购买商品、服务时,有权在网络平台上事先详细掌握其足以影响选择、决定的真实情况,以防止受到欺诈、瑕庇履行、不当引诱的损害。概念的厘定为剖析我国网络消费者知情权保护存在的缺陷奠定了基础,认为有以下三个方面:第一,立法规制乏力,这主要表现在网络交易经营者的信息披露义务不明确和网络消费者知情权的具体内容规定模糊等两个方面;第二,行政监管不力;第三,司法救济途径不畅,现行管辖不利于网络交易中的消费者;网络交易中消费者举证难度大;网络交易中小额诉讼效果不佳。最后,提出了完善我国网络消费者知情权法律保护的对策和建议:其一完善网络交易中消费者知情权的立法:完善网络消费者知情权保护的法律法规体系;加强网络广告立法打击虚假广告;完善物流配货的信息公开制度;其二加强对网络消费者知情权保护的监管:加强对网络消费者信息安全的监督;加强网络信用评价的监管;其三建立侵犯网络消费者知情权的救济制度:完善网购投诉机制;完善网购司法救济制度。
[Abstract]:With the development and progress of the times, network consumption has gradually become the focus of public attention, especially as an indispensable mode of consumption for young people. Consumers choose to purchase their own goods and services through the network platform. In principle, the network operators should timely and accurately publish the information of goods and services, store information and so on. In the first place, the right to know is the prerequisite for the consumer to know the right to know. In the first place, the right to know is the premise of the consumption activities. After a preliminary understanding of the functions and functions of the goods and services, the consumer can make a judgment and choose the goods that need to be consistent with their own consumption. So, the right to know is the opening of the consumption activities. In the process of network transaction, the realization of the right to know is the premise of fair and fair trade. It gives consumers time and opportunity to understand the detailed information of goods and services, guarantees the initiative of the consumers in the transaction and is more conducive to the fair and just of the transaction conditions; Thirdly, the right to know is a necessary condition for consumers to obtain security and security. However, because of the virtual and non field type of the network, the consumers in the network trade can not face the operator. This gives the operator a chance to infringe on the right to know of the Internet consumers. In the case of false "preferential price", "low price", "selling price", "clearing price" and selling goods, etc.), business credit fraud (the operator intentionally provides false information on the Internet, exaggerates its own strength, or directly impersonates well-known merchants), does not perform or completely fulfills the obligation of informing (intentionally omitting important information to evade) By setting obstacles to complicate the way of information acquisition of goods and services, evading informing obligations, setting up complex format contracts, avoiding informing obligations, and other violations of the right to know of Internet consumers, it completely violates the three information asymmetry theory, the principle of honesty and credit and the principle of fairness and rights. The information asymmetry theory holds that the Internet consumer is in a weak position and has limited access to information relative to the operator. The principle of honesty and credibility requires the protection of the right to know of the Internet consumers in order to be fair. The rights and obligations are equal, and the protection of the right to know of the Internet consumers is also the requirement. On the one hand, they are committed to studying the useful experiences accumulated by representative countries (the United States, Japan and South Korea) on the protection of the right to know of Internet consumers. Efforts should be made to strengthen the legislation; two to strengthen the disclosure obligations of the operators before trading; three to change the characteristics of the network transaction as the criterion for the revision of the law. In the protection of the right to know, the United States, Japan and South Korea are in the front of the international community, and the essence and dross are the necessity of protecting the right to know of the Internet consumers. On the other hand, they make an in-depth analysis of the manifestations and causes of the infringement of the right to know of consumers in China's network transactions in order to protect the right to know of the Internet consumers. This article takes the definition of the right to know of the Internet consumers as the entrance. The definition of the right to know, that is, when consumers buy goods through Internet channels and service, they have the right to master the real situation in the network platform in advance to influence the choice and determine the real situation, in order to prevent the fraud, the performance of the blemish and the improperly induced damage. The definition of the concept is to lay a foundation for the analysis of the defects of the protection of the right to know of the Internet consumers in our country. There are three aspects as follows: first, the legislative regulation is weak, which is mainly manifested in two aspects: the information disclosure obligation of the network operators is not clear and the specific content of the network consumers' right to know is vague. Second, the administrative supervision is poor; third, the way of judicial relief is not smooth, and the current jurisdiction is not conducive to the network transaction. The consumers in the network transaction are difficult to raise evidence in the network transaction, and the effect of small claims in the network transaction is not good. Finally, the countermeasures and suggestions are put forward to improve the legal protection of the right to know of the Internet consumers in our country: a perfect legislation on the right to know of consumers in the network transaction: to improve the legal system of the protection of the right to know of the consumers and to strengthen the legal system; Network advertising legislation to combat false advertising; improve the information disclosure system of logistics distribution; second, strengthen the supervision of the protection of the right to know the Internet consumers: strengthen the supervision of the information security of the network consumers; strengthen the supervision of the network credit evaluation; third, establish the relief system for the infringement of the right to know of the Internet consumers: perfect the network purchase complaint mechanism; Good online purchase of judicial relief system.

【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.8

【相似文献】