Basic facts:
In 2011, WANG Hai, China’s famous anti-fake specialist has continuously carried out attacks against the whiten and brighten laundry detergent of Guangzhou Bluemoon Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bluemoon”) through Sina microblog, alleging that the fluorescent brightener added in this product is the carcinogen which is of great harm to human body. WANG Hai’s such says aroused a huge social response, thus resulting in a serious negative impact to Bluemoon.
After WANG Hai, there are consecutive civil actions initiated by anti-fake specialists against the whiten and brighten laundry detergent of Bluemoon in Guangzhou, Beijing, Chongqing and other places.
In order to relieve the negative impacts and actively respond to various civil proceedings initiated at various places, commissioned by Bluemoon, we have established a legal team to make careful preparation for filing the lawsuit including collecting sufficient evidences, make strong arguments for our statements and collect relevant information, communicated with Bluemoon. for numerous times, finally formulated the strategy of “proactively deal with the crisis basing on facts”, and decided to bring a reputation infringement lawsuit against WANG Hai in Guangzhou.
Lawyers’ statement:
In the said series of disputes, the focus of controversy is very clear either in the lawsuit concerning tort of defamation initiated by WANG Hai against Bluemoon or in the civil actions initiated by other anti-fake specialists against Bluemoon, namely whether the fluorescent brightener used by Bluemoon is toxic, harmful and whether it can be added in detergent. Therefore, we, together with Bluemoon have made detailed and comprehensive demonstration, from the perspectives of product quality, academic standpoint, official documents and other aspects, proven that fluorescent brightener is non-toxic, harmless and can be added in the laundry detergent; we have put forward the following main arguments during various court hearings: 1. the product involved in the case, Deep Cleansing Care Laundry Detergent (Whiten and Brighten) of Bluemoon, is in line with the laundry detergent industry standards and corporate standards. It is proved to be a qualified product by tests from a number of authorized insititutions; 2. the “fluorescent brightener” used in the product involved in the case, Deep Cleansing Care Laundry Detergent of Bluemoon, is safe and harmless. The other party’s claim that the “fluorescent brightener” used in the product is carcinogen has no factual basis and scientific evidence. In fact, a large number of domestic and international authoritative research report proved that using fluorescent brightener in laundry detergent is safe and reliable, and will not adversely affect humans and the environment; 3. the other party claims that fluorescent brightener is a kind of chemical poison according to the Categories and Catalogs of Occupational Disease Hazards issued by State Administration of Work Safety; but in fact, the application scope of these Categories and Catalogs is essentially different from fluorescent brightener of the industry standard.
Opinions of court:
Relevant courts have basically accepted the statements of our lawyers in their judgments. Reasons listed hereon from the judgment of WANG Hai case as follows:
Focus I: Whether the remarks involved in this case published by WANG Hai have infringed the right of reputation of Bluemoon. Citizens have freedom of speech, but it shall obey by law and in a rational manner. In this case, WANG Hai is the famous anti-fake specialist in China; his comments and criticisms on enterprises and products arouse high degree of public attention ; therefore, comparing with others, he shall have more prudent obligation when publishing remarks. According to the relevant judicial interpretations, whether there is sufficient proof and evidences when WANG Hai naking his  remarks that the fluorescent brightener contained in the product involved in this case is carcinogen is the key to judge whether his remarks are unfounded or not. In this case, the evidences submitted by WANG Hai are insufficient . The reasons are listed as follows: 1. Relevant reviews and articles on Life Daily and People’s Daily cited by WANG Hai in his microblog only refer to fluorescent brightener, without specifying the fluorescent brightener of what kind of products. WANG Hai fails to prove what kind of fluorescent agent is used in the product involved in this case and manufactured by Bluemoon; his conclusion that the product of Bluemoon contains carcinogen is lacking of sufficient basis. 2. The Classification of Occupational Hazards cited by WANG Hai is aimed at the possible occupational hazards during the production process, not specified for the consumers who use the products. Therefore, as the famous anti-fake specialist, he is not cautious about his remarks. Without sufficient basis, he published remarks that the product of Bluemoon contains carcinogenic fluorescent brightener through microblog, receiving interview and other methods. These remarks have the impose negative impression to the public, and the internet has expanded the scope of communication wide enough, which has objectively destroyed the public trust in the quality of product involved in this case by Bluemoon, harmed Bluemoon’s credibility and damaged its reputation .
Focus II: Method of assuming tort liability or indemnity. WANG Hai shall make public apology on the same website where the infringement remarks are published. However, in terms of the amount of indemnity, Bluemoon has spent RMB 3 million of advertising cost to clarifying this event, but this is not the only way to eliminate the impact, the advertising cost of Bluemoon is not necessarily the amount of its loss. Taking various factors into consideration, the courts at two levels determine at its sole discretion that WANG Hai shall assume RMB 100,000 as the expense for eliminating the impact.
Judgment of court:
In all aforementioned cases, Bluemoon wins the lawsuits.
Lawyers’ remarks:
Product quality is the hot topic most concerned by the public in recent years. Remarks made by famous person online on the Company's product quality, even without factual or legal basis, may have a negative impact. It is a big challenge for Bluemoon and also a test for lawyers to make suitable response and handling. As the perennial legal lawyer of Bluemoon, we have established and complied with the fundamental principle of “have science to speak for us first, then have law to help us”, properly handled this crisis and finally win all relevant cases.