Introduction: The "Black Swan" on the Eve of IPO

In the autumn of 2023, a rapidly growing e-commerce platform was in full swing preparing for its IPO. However, a lawsuit brought all efforts to an abrupt halt – a competitor sued it for "false advertising" and "fake transactions and inflated credit", claiming 10 million yuan in compensation. The ensuing negative news spread like wildfire: the platform lost 15% of its merchants, transaction volume plummeted 23% month-on-month, and the IPO plan was forced to be shelved.

I. Emergency Response to Lawsuit: Speak with Data to Build the First Line of Defense

After taking over the case, our Internet legal team immediately activated the emergency response mechanism. We knew well that in the face of accusations like "fake transactions", the most powerful weapon is not justification, but data.

Comprehensive Retrieval of Backend Data

The team retrieved the platform's complete operational data for the past 6 months at the first time:

• Transaction Records: 230 million order information, tracing the source of each order one by one
• User Reviews: 1.2 million genuine reviews, establishing an abnormal rating model
• Anti-fake Transaction System Logs: Complete records of system interception behaviors

Dual Control Mechanism Comes to Light

Data revealed the truth: the platform had long established a dual control mechanism of "big data monitoring + manual review", intercepting a total of 32,000 abnormal orders and penalizing 127 non-compliant merchants. Every abnormal transaction is traceable, and every penalty is well-documented.

II. Counterattack: Uncover the Truth Behind the "Evidence"

During the detailed analysis of the "evidence" submitted by the plaintiff, the team discovered a key flaw – the so-called "chat records of fake transactions" were all out-of-context fragments, and inducement words were faintly visible in the screenshots.

In-depth Investigation and Evidence Collection

The team immediately applied to the court to retrieve the complete communication records between the plaintiff's internal employees and the platform's merchants. After weeks of waiting, key evidence came to light:

• The plaintiff's employees took the initiative to contact platform merchants, promising to "pay money to help with fake transactions"
• Explicitly informed to "take screenshots as evidence, only intercepting parts favorable to themselves"
• Quickly deleted chat records afterwards in an attempt to destroy evidence

Counterclaim: Fight a Beautiful Counterattack

After grasping conclusive evidence, the team resolutely filed a counterclaim, alleging that the other party constituted unfair competition. In the counterclaim, we pointed directly to the core:

"The plaintiff is not defending rights, but setting a trap. Taking advantage of the fluke mentality of platform merchants, it induced violations, then intercepted one-sided evidence, and filed malicious lawsuits in the name of 'cracking down on counterfeits'. Such acts not only damage the platform's goodwill but also disrupt the market order."

III. Court Debate: Where is the Boundary of the Platform's Supervision Obligation?

The court session became the main battlefield for confrontation between the two parties. The plaintiff clung to the fact that "fake transactions occurred on the platform" and tried to attribute all responsibilities to the platform.

Our Core Arguments

The team systematically elaborated around the "boundary of the platform's supervision obligation":

1. Fulfillment of Reasonable Duty of Care: The dual control mechanism established by the platform is far above the industry average, and the platform has fulfilled its reasonable supervision responsibility
2. Absence of Subjective Fault: The platform not only did not tolerate fake transactions but also continued to crack down on them, and the 32,000 interception records are the best proof
3. No Establishment of Causality: Even if there are sporadic fake transactions, they have nothing to do with the platform's business strategy and are individual behaviors of merchants

Citing Similar Precedents

The team sorted out typical cases of platform liability from courts nationwide in the past three years, clarifying the judicial trend to the court: as long as the platform establishes a reasonable supervision mechanism and performs its duties actively, it should not bear vicarious liability.

IV. Winning the Lawsuit: Rejecting the 10 Million Compensation Claim and Awarding Us 180,000 Yuan in Compensation

After six months of trial, the court finally made a fair judgment:

• Rejecting All Claims of the Plaintiff: Determining that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove that the platform engaged in false advertising
• Finding Malicious Litigation: The plaintiff induced merchants to conduct fake transactions and maliciously collect evidence, constituting unfair competition

• Compensating Our Reasonable Expenses: Ordering the plaintiff to bear our attorney fees, notarization fees and other expenses totaling 180,000 yuan

V. Rebirth: Rising from the Mud and Restarting the IPO Journey

Winning the lawsuit is just the beginning; repairing goodwill and rebuilding trust is a longer road. Our firm assisted the platform in comprehensively upgrading its management system:

System Upgrade

• Introducing a "Credit Score" system to tilt traffic towards compliant merchants
• Establishing a "Red and Black List" publicity mechanism to regularly announce penalty lists
• Optimizing the complaint handling process with 7×24-hour response

Remarkable Results

To date, the platform has delivered an impressive performance report:

• The number of merchants has rebounded by 25%, exceeding the level before the lawsuit
• Annual transaction volume exceeded 500 million yuan, a record high
• Restarted IPO preparation work, expected to submit the IPO application in 2025