(By You Yunting) On March 15, 2014, China CCTV exposed the quality problems of the Nikon D600 SLR Camera – it frequently produces black spots on photographs. In today’s post, we will introduce analysis about what legal problems might be encountered in litigation.
Introduction to the Case:
The Nikon D600 is marketed as a budget full-frame DSLR, higher quality than competitors’ products worth more than 10 000 Yuan, but recently it has been reported to frequently produce black spots on photographs. This problem allegedly is unresolved, persisting even after being cleaned and repaired several times by the manufacturer. When Nikon received complaints from consumers affected by this problem, Nikon refused to issue a refund or replacement, denied responsibility for the ash and dust (which was the issue causing the black spots), and even requested that users not to up-shooting. Currently, thousands of American users encountering the same problems have already authorized lawyers to initiate legal proceedings.
After the exposure of the Nikon D600 problems, Nikon China responded the next day that all China Nikon D600 owners are eligible for an inspection to clean and replace the shutter assembly, solving this problem. If the black spots problem persists after the inspection, Nikon D600 camera owners will receive a free replacement of a same-model Nikon camera with the promise that this problem will not happen again. The Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Industry and Commerce said on Sunday that it is investigating the problem and asked Nikon China to halt the sales of Nikon D600 cameras all over the China.
Lawyers’ Comment
Could all Nikon D600 owners institute a joint-action litigation against Nikon?
The Nikon D600 camera has more than 50,000 users in China. Theoretically, all owners encountering quality problems could initiate a joint-action with the same category of object. However, China’s courts are likely to require users to initiate an individual action. Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law, there is no individual provision about class-action actions. Instead, this is regulated under the provision of a joint-action. Under this law, “joint-action” includes the categories of “necessary joint-action” and the “general joint-action”. The “necessary joint-action” refers to the situation where the court must makes a judgment in a single case where one party consists of numerous persons for the same object. A “general joint-action” means that, if necessary, the court could make a judgment a single case where one party consists of numerous persons for the same object.
Generally, the courts think that having multiple plaintiffs in a case will bring the court into disorder. For the purpose of maintaining the order of the court, in circumstances where a general joint-action is possible, the courts almost always require a party consisting of numerous persons to initiate individual actions. Furthermore, in China, a judge’s investigations also include a quantity of closed cases every year. If a general joint action were to be initiated separately, it would greatly increase the number of closed cases. For these reasons, very few general joint-actions occur in China.
Should Nikon D600 users initiate litigation on the grounds of product liability, or product-quality liability?
Pursuant to the Product Quality Law, the manufacturer and distributor undertake legal burdens of “product-quality liability” and “product liability”. The former “product quality liability” constitutes the violation of contracts, meaning that the products had common quality problems arising from defective design and usage. However, the latter “product liability” belongs to the category of infringement, meaning that a defective product caused damage to human life or property, other than the defective product itself.
Turning once more to CCTV’s exposure of the Nikon D600 quality problem, such a problem is one of product-quality liability. Where litigation claiming a breach of product-quality liability as the basis for breach of contract (i.e. Product Quality Liability), it is the defendant that shall undertake the burden of proof proving his products met the minimum legal quality standards. Conversely, where such litigation is initiated on the grounds of infringement (i.e. Product Liability), it is the plaintiff that shall undertake such a burden of proof. As such, in the event that consumers submit primary evidence proving the quality problem, Nikon will assume the liability for products that fail to meet the legal quality standards. In the event that consumers initiate an action on the grounds of false advertising, from the prospective of litigation, it would be significantly more difficult for the plaintiffs to be successful.
Will the court order compensation for mental damages?
Regarding mental damages compensation, China’s courts will adopt a conservative attitude. The courts have always been in favor of plaintiffs seeking mental damages compensation for cases involving personal injury, such as where physical injury, physical disability, insult to reputation or damage to personal dignity have occurred, but have maintained a wary attitude towards other circumstances. Even though the courts have not supported mental damage compensation in other cases, the courts will not charge a litigant any fees for a claim for mental damage compensation. As such, many plaintiffs will always ask for mental damage compensation in their proceedings; this is a cheap way to place additional pressure on the defendant.
When should plaintiffs request quality identification in the proceedings?
An action of product quality liability must contain quality identification. Considering the high fees and recognition problems associated with quality identification, we suggest that clients sometimes make quality identification during, instead of before initiating, the legal proceedings. In other words, clients should submit primary evidence towards the defective nature of a product when initiating an action, and apply for quality identification during the proceedings. This is because during the proceedings it is possible to ask the court to appoint the accrediting organization to do quality identification, which would give the likely result in improved recognition and lower costs.
Lawyer Contacts
You Yunting：86-21-52134918 youyunting@debund.com/yytbest@gmail.com
Disclaimer of Bridge IP Law Commentary
Short Link: