Fictitious “ Beginning “
Court verdict: Luo Changping, financial media member of the fictional facts involved in the case, publicly apologized and compensated RMB 180,000
At the beginning of this year, a Baidu company set up a so-called “Beginning Office” to crack down on today’s headlines. The news that employees were paid generously was uploaded on the Internet. In order to clear the bank, Baidu subsequently sued the financial media person Luo Changping, who released the news, to the court and demanded that the other party make an apology and claim 5 million yuan. Recently, the Haidian court made a first-instance verdict on the case. The court held that the articles involved constituted false facts and the defendant should bear the tort liability. Luo Changping was adjudged to publicly apologize and compensate Baidu’s losses of more than RMB 180,000.
Netcom hits headline today Baidu sues journalist blogger
The plaintiff stated that on January 24th this year, Baidu discovered that the defendant had published the content on its real-name certified personal microblog Sina Weibo. “Baidu has a microblogging affair with rsquo; rdquo; and it has three pictures. As a component of the article. The defendant fabricated Baidu to set up the fact that "destroying today's headline office", while using the unrecognized false "Wechat circle of friends" information, fictional related "defeat today's headline office"'s duties and work content. Once this article was published, it became a hot topic for the public and the media in a very short period of time.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant’s actions had caused serious damage to the plaintiff’s image and social assessment and constituted a reputational right infringement. Therefore, the defendant appealed to the court and asked the court to order the defendant to apologize and compensate for the loss of 5 million yuan.
During the trial of this case, the defendant argued that the "head-to-head office" content exists on many websites. He only cares about the public interests and has no subjective fault. In addition, the articles involved were not enough to reduce the content of the plaintiff’s social assessment. The plaintiff, as a big internet company, should also do his duty of reasonable tolerance.
Article constitutes a false fact that the defendant assumes responsibility
Haidian Court held that according to the facts found, according to the facts found, the defendant sent Bowen to publicly disseminate Baidu’s company’s “comprehension” to crack down on its competitors' “headlines” without any corresponding facts. And referring to the circumstances in which its employees were specifically engaged in combating the "headline" of the "headlines" and paid remuneration, the related statements of the articles involved have constituted false statements of facts.
The plaintiff is a well-known company listed on the market. Today, the headline is a growth-oriented Internet company. Baidu has a relative industry position advantage over today’s headlines. In the absence of a full factual basis, the relevant blog post was openly disseminated in a positive tone to the competitors that Baidu Company had set up after launching an unfair attack by a specialized agency. The dissemination has obvious meaning. The public dissemination of the so-called "dark screen" is enough to cause the society to have a negative social impact on the company and reduce its economic credit and social evaluation. Therefore, the false facts involved in the case are enough to produce a damage to the plaintiff.
Although the defendant claimed that the content of the relevant blog post was a reprinted article, it did not clearly indicate which reports came from. It can be seen that the blog post did not conform to the original text or was simply edited and modified. It should be considered that the defendant was the originator of the article involved and should bear the original issuer’s Tort Liability. As for the amount of compensation for damages, the court will decide according to the severity of the nature of the defendant's remarks and the influence of Bowen on the company of the plaintiff. In the end, the court of first instance determined that the defendant had posted a statement of apology on its Weibo for 10 consecutive days, and compensated the plaintiff for losses of more than RMB 180,000.
Beijing Morning Post reporter Huang Xiaoyu