Mr. Li purchased a round-trip ticket from Houston to Hong Kong on the e-commerce platform operated by Blue Sky Company (a pseudonym). Later, the platform informed Mr. Li that the flight had been canceled. Mr. Li sued Blue Sky Company in court, requesting a refund of 12,643 yuan for the ticket and 300 yuan in lost wages. After trial, Haidian Court ruled that since Blue Sky Company was not the ticket seller, Mr. Li's claims were all dismissed.

Case Summary

Plaintiff Mr. Li claims that on March 6, 2024, he purchased a round-trip ticket from Houston to Hong Kong on the e-commerce platform operated by Blue Sky Company for 12,634 yuan. After payment, the ticket was successfully issued. However, on March 8, the platform informed Mr. Li that his flight seat had been canceled and that he could not take the purchased flight, and it refused to refund him. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit requesting a refund of 12,643 yuan for the ticket and 300 yuan for lost wages.  

The defendant, Blue Sky Company, argued that the dispute over a refund claimed by Mr. Li due to the cancellation of his seat caused by duplicate booking of the ticket is a contractual issue between Mr. Li and the airline regarding air passenger transportation services and is unrelated to the platform. After the ticket dispute occurred, Blue Sky Company actively contacted the ticket seller and the airline to verify the situation. During the dispute resolution process, it fulfilled its duty to mediate and did not commit any wrongdoing. The losses claimed by Mr. Li are unrelated to Blue Sky Company. After verifying with the ticket issuing agent and the airline involved, it was found that the passenger had made a duplicate booking, and the airline automatically canceled the seat. The seat for the ticket in question had already been canceled by the airline due to the duplicate booking and could not be restored, and the airline does not allow a full refund for this ticket. The loss incurred by Mr. Li due to the cancellation of the seat caused by duplicate booking and the inability to get a refund has nothing to do with the platform or the ticket issuing agent involved. Blue Sky Company, as an e-commerce platform, carried out sufficient mediation efforts after the dispute occurred and did not commit any wrongdoing.

Court Trial

The court, after examination, found that Mr. Li purchased a round-trip ticket from Houston to Hong Kong for 12,643 yuan on the e-commerce platform operated by Lantian Company. Later, the reserved ticket was canceled. Regarding the cancellation of the above ticket, Mr. Li provided feedback and made inquiries to the platform’s customer service. The platform informed Mr. Li via email that the ticket had indeed been canceled and was no longer usable. Lantian Company submitted chat records of communication with the agent's customer service, in which the agent stated that the airline had canceled the seat due to it being identified as a duplicate booking and claimed that in such circumstances the ticket was non-refundable.

The court held that Mr. Li purchased a ticket on the e-commerce platform operated by Lantian Company. As a user, Mr. Li was engaged with Lantian Company, the e-commerce platform operator, in a network service contractual relationship, and not a sales contract relationship. After the dispute arose, Lantian Company disclosed the seller, and from the beginning did not make any further commitments, therefore it should not bear compensation responsibility. In addition, after the ticket was successfully issued, it was canceled by the issuing party; this cancellation was not carried out by Lantian Company and cannot be attributed to it. Lantian Company did not breach the contract, so Mr. Li’s litigation claims were without legal basis, and the court did not support them. The court ultimately ruled to dismiss all of Mr. Li’s claims.

Judicial Opinions

From scanning a QR code for shopping to paying bills online, digital payments have covered numerous aspects of daily life. Online payment is not just a tool; it has reshaped the modern lifestyle. However, while online transactions offer convenience, consumers also need to know how to resolve disputes when they arise.  

When browsing e-commerce platforms, consumers should pay attention to whether the products and services displayed are directly operated by the platform itself. If they are not self-operated, even if the consumer makes the payment on the platform, the platform is not the actual party responsible for selling the goods or providing the services. In such cases, online shopping typically involves two legal relationships: one is a network service contract between the consumer and the e-commerce platform operator; the other is a sales contract or service contract between the consumer and the individual sellers on the platform.  

According to Article 44 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, if a consumer suffers a loss when purchasing goods or receiving services through an online trading platform, they may seek compensation from the seller or service provider. If the online platform provider cannot provide the true name, address, or valid contact information of the seller or service provider, the consumer may also request compensation from the platform provider. If the online platform provider knows, or should know, that a seller or service provider is infringing on the consumer's legal rights through its platform and fails to take necessary measures, the platform provider shall bear joint liability with the seller or service provider in accordance with the law.  

Therefore, as an online trading platform, it should fulfill reasonable review and duty of care when merchants join the platform, perform information disclosure obligations after disputes arise, and not make further commitments during operation; under these circumstances, it should not bear compensation liability. Consumers must pay attention to the responsible parties when defending their rights and avoid confusing different legal relationships. For example, in this case, Lantian Company is an e-commerce platform that has a network service contract with Mr. Li, meaning Lantian Company is not the proper party for Mr. Li to claim a refund based on a sales contract dispute.  

(All names in this article are pseudonyms.)  

This article is reprinted from the WeChat public account 'Beijing Haidian Court,’ and we extend our thanks!