No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Consumer Protection in China: An Examination of the Toshiba Notebook Case from an Australian Perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2015
Abstract
China's access to the World Trade Organisation has led to further opening up of its market to foreign operators. However, the influx of foreign investment has simultaneously increased the chance of conflict between Chinese consumers and foreign enterprises. In the past few years, there was an upsurge amongst consumers in China that their rights had been trampled by foreign manufacturers. Amongst all those consumers' complaints, vigorous protests were found against Toshiba Electronic Corporation. Toshiba was being accused of discriminating against Chinese consumers in payment of compensation. This article aims to evaluate the legal issues arising from Toshiba Notebook case. Those issues in Toshiba Notebook case have been addressed from an Australian legal perspective with particular reference to the major consumer legislation that is the Trade Practices Act 1974. Comments are also made on non-legal implications related to the case in question.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2007
References
1 Editor, “Pioneer – inadequate after sale services”, Liberation Daily, (7 March 2001), online: Sol <http://it.sol.sohu.com>.
2 Editor, “Nokia mobile phones still have defect - users lose their confident”, People Daily (Japan edition), (8 March 2001), online: People <http://japan.people.com.cn>.
3 The “three guarantee” obligations mean traders are responsible for providing repair, replacement, and refund service in the case of defective goods. Such obligations are embedded in several consumer protection statutes including the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China.
4 Xin, Z.M. “Fujifilm, Kodak play with fire”, China Daily, (29 June 2000), online: China Daily <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn>.
5 Weng, J.G. “Safeguard consumers' rights and interest - Shanghai consumer association accepts consumer complaints against Mitsubishi”, SINA, (13 February 2001), online: Sina <http://finance.sina.com.cn>.
6 Editor, “Toshiba's refusal implies prejudice”, China Daily, (19 May 2000), online: China Daily <http://search.chinadaily.com.cn/isearch/i_textinfo.exe?dbname=cndy_printedition&listid=5977&selectword=CHINESE CONSUMER>.
7 Editor, “Man smashes his Mercedes”, The Australian, (28 December 2001), online: The Australian News <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story…/0,5744,3500843%255 E401,00.htm>.
8 Pollock, A. “Toshiba to Spend $1 Billion to Settle Laptop Lawsuit”, The New York Times on the Web, (30 October 1999), online: NY Times <http://nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/biztech/articles/30toshiba.html>Google Scholar.
9 Online: Toshiba <http://www.toshiba.com.cn/fdc.html>.
10 Editor, “Toshiba's refusal implies prejudice”, China Daily, (19 May 2000), online: China Daily <http://search.chinadaily.com.cn/isearch/i_textinfo.exe?dbname=cndy_printedition&listid=5977&selectword=CHINESE CONSUMER>.
11 Shaw and Moo, v. Toshiba Inc., 91 F. Supp. 2d 942, (E.D. Texas 2000) at 990 Google Scholar.
12 Online: Toshiba <http://www.toshiba.com.cn/help/help3.asp>. Shaw and Moon v. Toshiba Inc. 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3592 at 22.
13 Andy Pasztor and Peter Landers “Toshiba to pay $2B settlement on laptops”, The Wall Street Journal Online, (31 October 1999), online: Zdnet. <http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-516294.html?legacy=zdnn>.
14 Editor, “Toshiba Faces Media Fire in China”, People's Daily, (30 May 2000), online: People's Daily <http://www.peopledaily.com.cn>.
15 Editor, “Leung Wai Sing from the Academy of Social Sciences said Toshiba's defense is wrong”, SINA, (2004), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
16 Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the Second Session of the Ninth National People's Congress on March 15, 1999, promulgated on 15 May 1999 and effective on 1 October 1999.
17 Article 62 states “If the relevant terms of a contract are unclear, nor can it be determined according to the provisions of Section 61, the provisions below shall be applied”. Article 62(1) states, “f quality requirements are unclear, the State standards or trade standards shall be applied; if there are no State standards or trade standards, generally held standards or specific standards in conformity with the purpose of the contract shall be applied”.
18 Zhu, Jerry and Su, Peng Fei “Overview of Chinese Product Liability Law”, Davis Wright Tremaine - China Developments Advisory Bulletin, (1999), online: Dwt <http://www.dwt.com>Google Scholar.
19 Leung, Allan. And Clark, Douglas, “The International Comparative Legal Guide to Product Liability 2006: Hong Kong and China” 14 Global Legal Group 86, (2006), online: ICLG <www.ICLG.CO.UK>Google Scholar.
20 Wang, C. “How much compensation could consumers receive?”, The Beijing Youth, (14 July 1999), online: BJ Youth <http://www.bjyouth.com.cn/Bqb/1999714/GB/3943AD0714B1711.html>Google Scholar.
21 The Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted 22 February 1993 by the 30th Session of the Standing Committee of the 7th National People Congress. Revised in Accordance with the Decision Concerning the Amendment of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China passed 8 July 2000 by the 16th Session of the Standing Committee of the 9th National People's Congress.
22 Articles 40(3) and 41.
23 The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, adopted 31 October 1993 by the 4th Session of the Standing Committee of the 8th National People's Congress.
24 For a discussion of the legal framework of Chinese consumer system, see Ip, Mary, “Chinese Consumer Law: Recent Developments and Implications”, (2001) 6 Int'l J Bus. 111 Google Scholar. For a discussion of the effectiveness of the product liability law in China, see Gary Zhao, “Chinese Product Liability Law: Can China Build Another Great Wall to Protect Its Consumers?” (2002) 1 2W5 ash. U. Global Stud. L.Rev. 581.
25 The General Principle of Civil Law of People's Republic of China, adopted 12 April 1986 by the 4th Session of the 6th National People's Congress.
26 See supra note 13 at 3.
27 Corones, Stephen and Clarke, Philip, Consumer Protection and Product Liability Law: Commentary and Materials; second edition. (Sydney: LawBook., 2002), at p. 678 Google Scholar.
28 See supra note 28 at 6.
29 See supra note 12 at 3.
30 Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314, (2001).
31 Ibid. at § 2-315.
32 Editor, “US Product Liability Law” Faegre & Benson LLP, (2000), online: Uk Trade Investments <http://downloads.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/usliabilitylaw.pdf>.
33 Liang, H., “The Legal System of Product Liability in the People's Republic of China”, (1998) 1 Consumer L.J. 213 at 220 Google Scholar.
34 Jansson, A., and Riley, M., “Product Liability in China”, (1999) 4 Int'l Co Comm. L.Rev. 129 at 133 Google Scholar.
35 See supra note 31 at 6.
36 For a discussion of the Chinese judicial interpretation of “producer”, see Hill, David W., and Murata, Shinichi, “Trademark licensor may be sued as co-defendant in product liability case in China”, (2003) 9 IP Litigator 32 Google Scholar.
37 See supra note 22 at 5.
38 Article 49 states that if a business operator that practices fraud in providing a commodity or a service at the consumer's request, the business operator is obliged to increase the amount of compensation for loss incurred by the consumer; and the increment shall be double the price of the commodity or service.
39 Section 58.
40 Section 52 (1) and Section 54 (2).
41 Section 49.
42 Tung, Y. China CivilLlaw Study - General Principle of Civil Law, (China: People's Republic of China Procuartorate University Press, 2002), at 238 Google Scholar.
43 See supra note 14 at 3.
44 Trade Practices Act, Section 52 (1) states “A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive”.
45 Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v. UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at p. 489 Google Scholar.
46 Leung, W.S. “Section 49 of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Consumers” Rights and Interest - analysis and application’, China :aw Education, (2004), online: China Law <http://www.chinalawedu.com>Google Scholar.
47 Ho, B. “Hang Seng's Notebook computer - case analysis”, Chinalawinfo, (2000), online: China Law Information <http://www.chinalawinfo>Google Scholar.
48 Chen, D. “The meaning of misleading and its consequence of contravention”, Peking Trade and Commerce University Review. (2004), online: XuanXhuan <Http://xuanchuan.btbu.edu.cn>Google Scholar.
49 See supra note 48 at 10.
50 Lockhart, C. The Law of Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, 2nd Edition. (Sydney: Butterworths, 2003), at p. 133 Google Scholar. Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act does not create such a duty of disclosure.
51 See supra note 51, at 133,140-150.
52 Editor, “Toshiba Against Chinese Consumer Rights Law (1)”, Xinhua News Agency, (23 May 2000), online: Comtex News <http://www.comtexnews.com>.
53 The Product Label Marketing Provisions promulgated on 7 November 1997 by the State Administration for Technology Supervision, Article 6.
54 Consumer Law, Sections 18 and 19.
55 Section 14 (2).
56 Lau, X.S. and Chen, W.M. Product Liabilities and Consumers Rights - 102 questions, (China: People's Court Press, 1995), at p. 51 Google Scholar.
57 Section 8.
58 Consumer Law, Section 18.
59 Section 35.
60 Barton v. Croner Trading Pty. Ltd. (1984) 3 FCR 95; Thompson v. Riley Mckay Pty. Ltd. (No 2) 61980) 29 ALR 267; Given v. Pryor (1979) 24 ALR 442.
61 The Civil Procedure of the People's Republic of China, adopted 9 April 1991 by the 4th Session of the Standing Committee of the 7th National People's Congress. Section 64.
62 Section 4. Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure was issued by the Supreme People's Court of China Judicial Committee in the 1201 meetings on 21 December 2001 and effected on 1 April 2002.
63 Leung, W.S. “Chinese Product Liability Law - a review of problem and counterfeiting policy of fake and shoddy goods”, Chinese Civil and Commercial Law. (2001), online: Civil Law <http://www.civillaw.com.cn>Google Scholar.
64 Chen, J.R. “The System of Evidence for Chinese Civil litigation”, Chinese Civil and Commercial Law. (2002), online: Civil Law <http://www.civillaw.com.cn>Google Scholar.
65 The Supreme Court emphasizes that in the absence of specific stipulation as to who has the burden of proving evidence; court can decide in accordance to the general principles of “Equality” and ‘Good faith’. Sourced from Chiu, S.K. “Discussion on the civil procedure for consumer protection case”, Supreme People's Procuratorate, (29 March 2003), online: Jerb <http://review.jerb.com.cn>.
66 Editor, “Expert's analysis: Why Toshiba can afford to refuse the claims”, SINA, (29 May 2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
67 Sections 74B(1), 74C(1)(d), 74D(1), 74E(1), 74F(1)(c), and 74G(1), Trade Practices Act 1974.
68 Editor, “Toshiba knows little of China's laws”, China Daily, (6 January 2000), online: China Daily <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn>.
69 Editor, “Toshiba case triggers debate over consumer law”, China Daily, (29 May 2000), online: China Daily <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn>.
70 Hong, S.S. “Consumer contract and punitive damage”, JCRB, (2002), online: JCRB <http://www.jcrb.com>.
71 Editor, “China Consumer Association's view over the Toshiba incident: the crucial factor is evidence”, SINA, (15 July 2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
72 Editor, “Toshiba Under Fire for 'Discrimination' Against Chinese Consumers (2)”, Xinhua News Agency, (16 May 2000), online: XinhuanNet <http://www.xinhuanet.com>.
73 See supra note 71 at 13.
74 Editor, “Expert's dissection of Toshiba case”, SINA, (5 June 2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
75 Thomas A. Packer, “Product liability law in the United States: Considerations For Foreign Companies”, Gordon & Rees LLP, (2003), online: GordonRees <http://www.gordonrees.com/pubs/pllaw.cfm>.
76 See supra note 12 at 980.
77 Part IVA, Ss51AAB - 51AC, Trade Practices Act 1974.
78 Part V, Division 1, S52, Trade Practices Act 1974.
79 Part V, Division 1, S53, Trade Practices Act 1974.
80 Wardley Australia Ltd v. State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, at p. 525; Swingcastle Ltd v Gibson [1990] 1 WLR 1223, at p. 1236.
81 State of Western Australia v. Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245, at p. 261 and confirmed by Demagogue Pty Ltd v. Ramensky (1992) 110 ALR 608, at p. 700.
82 See supra note 12 at 990.
83 See supra note 14 at 3.
84 Editor, “Expert's dissection of Toshiba case”, SINA, (5 June 2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
85 Editor, “Regarding consumers' rights”, China Daily, (19 March 2001), online: China Daily <http://search.chinadaily.com.cn>.
86 See supra n. 72, at p. 13.
87 Feng, X.Q. and Luo, S.Z. “Wang Hai Phenomenon and Legal Protection for Consumers in China”, (1998) 6 Consumer L.J 359 at 364 Google Scholar.
88 See supra note 72 at 13. For a detailed discussion of fraudulent conduct under Article 49, see Wang, W.G. “Fraudulent Conduct and Punitive Damages in The Consumer Protection Law of China”, (1997) 4 Canberra L.Rev. 111 Google Scholar.
89 Owen, David, “Symposium: Punitive damages awards in product liability litigation: Strong medicine or poison pill?: A punitive damages overview: Functions, problems and reform”, (1994) 39 Villanova L.Rev. 363 at 365 Google Scholar.
90 Coloca v. B.P. Australia Ltd. (1992) 2 V.R. 441, at pp 441 and 445.
91 Tilbury, Michael and Luntz, Harold “Punitive Damages in Australian Law” (1995) 17 Loy L.A. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 769 at 778 Google Scholar.
92 Gotanda, John,. “Punitive Damages: A Comparative Analysis”, Villanova University School of Law Working Paper Series, at p. 25. online: Bepress <http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=villanovalwps>>Google Scholar.
93 Bloomberg, , “Toshiba to fight mainland lawsuits over faulty drives”, South China Morning Post, (26 August 2000), online: SCMP <http://www.scmp.com>Google Scholar.
94 Ibid.
95 Overby, Brooke, “Consumer Protection In China After Accession To The WTO”, (2006) 33 Syracuse J Int'l L. & Comm. 347 at 378 Google Scholar. Also see supra note 12 at 3.
96 Editor, “It is not the end for the Toshiba case, Chinese consumers advocate class action”, SINA. (2001), online: Sina <http://tech.sina.com.cn/h/n/60240.html>.
97 The Civil Procedure of the People's Republic of China, adopted 9 April 1991 by the 4th Session of the Standing Committee of the 7th National People's Congress.
98 For a discussion of the utility of consumer class action in America see Greve, Michael S., “Consumer Law, Class Actions, and the Common Law” (2004) 7 Chapman L.Rev. 155 Google Scholar.
99 Editor, ‘Lesson from Toshiba case’, SINA. (2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
100 For examples of class certification denial, see Pengilley, W. “Comments: Representative actions under the Trade Practices Act: The lessons for smokers and tobacco companies”, (2000), 8 Competition and Consumer Law Journal 176, at p. 182 Google Scholar.
101 See supra note 97at 376.
102 For a discussion of contemporary Chinese legal system, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law>.
103 For a detailed discussion see Hooper, Beverly, “The Consumer Citizen in Contemporary China”, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies Lund University, Sweden, Working Paper No 12, pp1–19. (2005), online: Ace <http://www.ace.lu.se>.Google Scholar; Jackson, Peter, “Local consumption cultures in a globalizing world”, 29 Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, pp1–15 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Li, Xia, “A Mirror-Maze of Hope and Illusion: Chinese Cultural Identity and Globalisation”, In: TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift fur Kulturwissenschaften No.16/2005, pp1–19, (2005), online: Inst <http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/03_1/li16.htm>Google Scholar.
104 Ibid. at 9.
105 Smith, G. “Chinese Discover Product Liability Suits”, Wall Street Journal, (13 November 1997). Online: PQ Archiver <http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/22578137.html?dids=22578137:22578137&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+13%2C+1997&author=By+Craig+S.+Smith&type=91_1996&desc=Chinese+Discover+Product-Liability+Suits>Google Scholar.
106 Ibid.
107 Reporter, “Radio hotline in Shanghai listens to angry consumers”, Taipei Times, (27 August 2001), online: Taipei Times. <http://www.taipeitimes.com?News/worldbiz/archives/2001/08/27/100411>.
108 Ibid. at 2.
109 Reporter, “Consumers show bottle in fight for rights”, The South China Morning Post, (27 August 2001), online: SCMP <http://china.scmp.com/today/ZZZMZBOFQQC.html>.
110 Trish Saywell, “Demanding Action”, Far East Economic Review, (13 May 1999), online: Feer <http://www.feer.com/Restricted/99may_13/law.html>.
111 See supra note 106 at 13.
112 Hooper, Beverly, “Globalisation and Resistance in Post-Mao China: The case of Foreign Consumer Product”, (2000) 24 Asian Stud. Rev. 399 at 449–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
113 For examples of recent Sino-Japanese conflict, see Wang, Jane, “Crossroads in Sino-Japanese relations: Exploring the impact of anti-Japanese sentiment on Japanese firms' business relations in China”, Tufts University, the Fletchers School Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy theses, pp 1–91. (2005), online: Tufts <http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/studentresearch.shtml>Google Scholar.
114 Ibid at 26-27.
115 Interfax, “China Ban rumor caused 7.86% slump in Matsushita (Panasonic) Corporation share price”, Alibaba, (27 August 2001), online: Alibaba <http://www.alibaba.com/chinamarketplace/reports_analysis/env_IT0910.html>.
116 See supra note 107 at 18.
117 Reporter, “Chinese Passengers Prepare to Sue Japan Airlines”, People's Daily, (16 February 2001), online: People <http://english.people.com.cn/english/200102/16/eng20010216_62531.html>.
118 See supra note 115 at 19.
119 Reporter, “JAL compensated Chinese passengers over alleged discrimination”, Airline Industry Information, (31 July 2001), online: All Business. <http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/796773-1.html>.
120 For detail of the remedy under the settlement, see supra note 12 at 3.
121 Another example of “wartime” campaign was taken place when America bombing Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999. Slogan such as “I'd rather die of thirst than drink Coca-Cola” or “I'd rather starve to death than eat McDonald's” were appear in Guangzhou city, see supra note 114 at 19.
122 Parker, Emily, “The Burden of Being Japanese”, the Far Eastern Economic Review, (5 April 2005), online: Feer <http://www.feer.com/articles1/2005/0504/free/p014.html>Google Scholar.
123 Editor, “Toshiba under fire in China”, United Press International, (24 May 2000), online: Comtex News <http://www.comtexnews.com>.
124 Xu, M. “Toshiba's Missteps in China”, UltraChina. (2001), online: Ultra China <http://www.ultrachina.com>Google Scholar.
125 See supra note 71 at 13.
126 Reuters, “Toshiba laptop sales suffer from bad press”, South China Morning Post, (20 December 2000), online: SCMP <http://www.scmp.com>.
127 For example, Toshiba vice-president Masaichi Koga had to travel to Beijing to explain Toshiba's position at a press conference, see People's Daily (23 August 2003), online: People Daily <http://www.peopledaily.com.cn>.
128 Cui, L. “Chinese consumers association highly praised the action taken by the China Quality Certification Centre For Import and Export with respect to the Mitsubishi case”, China Youth, (15 February 2001), online: People <http://www.people.com.cn/GB/jinji/32/178/0010215/396445.html>.
129 See supra note 72 at 13.
130 For a detailed discussion of punitive damage in the Chinese consumer law realm, see supra note 90 at 16.
131 See supra note 18 at 5.
132 Editor, “Toshiba case - a vigilance”, SINA, (3 June 2000), online: Sina <http://www.sina.com.cn>.
133 See supra note 71 at 13.
134 See supra note 93 at 786.
135 See supra note 18 at 117.
136 Readers should take note that, firstly, the punitive damages imposed by Article 49 of the Chinese Consumer Law is double of the purchase price as discussed above; and secondly, the Chinese concept and objective of punitive damages is broader than its western counterparts, Ibid.
137 For a further discussion of Wang Hai's case, see Ip, Mary, “An Update on the Wang Hai Phenomenon”, (2000) 8 Consumer L.J. 71 Google Scholar.
138 Four legal actions were initiated against Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq Computer Corporation, NEC Packard-Bell and e-Machines Incorporation. See Fitzgerald, M. and Zimmerman, M. “PC makers hit with ‘copycat’ suits”, ZDNet, (1 November 1999), online: ZD Net <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-516344.html>Google Scholar.
139 Howells, Geraint, and James, Rhoda, “Litigation in the Consumer interest”, (2002), 9 ILSA J Int'l & Comp. L. 56 at 38Google Scholar.
140 The US $147.5 million attorneys' fee that Toshiba paid was only constituted 7.02% of the total recovery of the action. See supra note 12 at 988.
141 Ibid. at 980-981.
142 Harper, Jennifer, “Faulty-disk settlement gets computers to needy”, The Washington Times, (29 January 2003), online: Washington Times <http://www.washtimes.com>Google Scholar.