China Consumer Association Releases Typical Judicial Cases for Consumer Rights Protection in 2025 Nationwide

Staff Reporter Zhang Nan

Does the Consumer Protection Law apply to medical disputes? Who bears responsibility for “big text catches the eye, small text exempts”? Recently, the China Consumers Association released the top ten typical judicial cases of consumer rights protection in 2025. Through case analysis, they provide answers to questions consumers are generally concerned about.

Does the Consumer Protection Law apply to medical disputes?

Sun Moumou consulted online with Beijing Dawanglu Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital Co., Ltd. about skin rashes. When asked about the hospital’s qualifications, he was told it was a “nationally recognized top-tier hospital,” so he went for treatment and was diagnosed with papules and prostatitis. He paid a total of 61,963 yuan for three visits. Later, administrative authorities found that hospital staff gave false answers regarding the hospital’s medical qualification and ordered the hospital to correct this and imposed administrative penalties. Sun Moumou claimed that the false statements, inducement to consume, and excessive medical treatment constituted consumer fraud, and sued for a refund and punitive damages.

The first-instance court ordered Beijing Dawanglu Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital to refund 50,000 yuan of medical service fees. The second-instance court consulted medical experts, confirming that Sun Moumou’s condition was common and not an emergency or critical illness, and that all expenses were purely out-of-pocket. The hospital is a profit-making medical institution, and a contract was formed with the plaintiff based on mutual intent. The court recognized that the medical services in this case are consumer-type medical activities and fall under the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The hospital engaged in false advertising and over-treatment during consultation and treatment, constituting fraud, and should bear punitive damages. The second-instance court ordered the hospital to refund 50,000 yuan and pay three times the total medical expenses, amounting to 185,889 yuan.

Can “big text catches the eye, small text exempts” serve as a defense?

Li Mou purchased a Sony HT-A5000 speaker for 4,434 yuan from the “SONY JD Self-operated Official Store” on JD.com operated by Beijing JD Century Information Technology Co., Ltd. The product name and promotional images prominently featured the “360 Dome Function.” However, after receiving the product, Li found that the “360 Dome Function” option in the control program was grayed out and could not be toggled. After reviewing the product page information and consulting customer service, Li learned that the product required pairing with two rear surround speakers to realize the “360 Dome Function.” Li believed that JD.com’s conduct constituted fraud and sued for a refund and triple damages.

The court held that although the defendant indicated multiple times that the “360 Smart Dome” function “requires pairing with optional rear surround speakers,” this information was either shown with asterisks and small print or implied as “wireless rear surround speakers available for purchase,” and only the “360 Smart Dome” feature was prominently displayed in the product name and main images. As the seller, the defendant used these promotional methods to display product information but failed to fully, truthfully, and accurately disclose all relevant information to consumers. This prevented the plaintiff from achieving the purpose of purchasing based on the “360 Smart Dome” feature. The plaintiff has the right to rescind the contract. However, since the defendant did provide multiple prompts and options for purchase, and there is insufficient evidence to prove intentional fraud, the court ordered the defendant to refund 4,434 yuan and bear the return shipping costs. After receiving the refund, Li returned the product to the defendant.