Recently, Llinks' team represented OPPO to handle a dispute over the right to reputation and fully won the case. The court found that the defendant had infringed upon OPPO's right to reputation. The defendant was ordered to delete the articles, make a public apology to OPPO and compensate for economic loss and expenses.

The defendant in this case, Beijing Matador Culture Media Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Matador"), is a professional media that pays close attention to cell phone products, etc. The Defendant had published several articles about OPPO's cell phone on DoNews website, which contain many false statements, seriously affecting OPPO's reputation.

The court of first instance, considering the circumstances of the case, did not support Matador's defense that it was carrying out news reporting and public opinion monitoring in the public interest. The court held that Matador, as a professional media in the field of cell phone, published the articles inaccurate in many places and failed to prove that it had fulfilled its obligation to carry out the necessary investigations and reasonable verifications. The court of first instance finally found that Matador constituted infringement, and supported OPPO's request for Matador to delete the infringing articles, make a public apology and compensate for the reasonable expenses of RMB 91,580.

After the first instance judgment was rendered, Matador appealed. The court of the second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

The typical significance of this case is that it reconfirms the media's obligation of reasonable verification in the implementation of news reporting and public opinion monitoring. On the one hand, this case applies the highlights of the Civil Code's provisions on the infringement of the right to reputation by news reporting and public opinion monitoring. This case provides another reference case from the perspective of judicial practice for seeking a balance between media public opinion monitoring and protection of the right to reputation of enterprises. On the other hand, the judicial orientation of this case also echoes the Clear Action. In this regard, we understand that the judgment of this case has positive demonstration and reference significance for both online media and enterprises, and will help to jointly purify the online environment. The law respects and protects legitimate news reporting and public opinion monitoring, and also requires that the other party has the obligation of moderate tolerance. However, freedom of expression should be limited within a fair and reasonable legal framework, and should not break the boundaries of legal protection.

Llinks Team:

Partners: Mark Zhang

Associate: Dana Liu