{"id":137094,"date":"2026-04-02T09:37:05","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T09:37:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=137094"},"modified":"2026-04-07T10:39:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T10:39:24","slug":"china-product-liability","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/china-product-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"China: Product Liability"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-137094","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-product-liability","jurisdictions-china"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">King &amp; Wood<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/03\/Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">King &amp; Wood<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/03\/Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Product Liability laws and regulations applicable in China<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the main causes of action upon which a product liability claim can be brought in your jurisdiction, for example, breach of a statutory regime, breach of contract and\/or tort? Please explain whether, for each cause of action, liability for a defective product is fault-based or strict (i.e. if the product is defective, the producer (or another party in the supply chain) is liable even if they were not individually negligent).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, the key legal instruments governing product liability include the Civil Code, the Product Quality Law, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (PCRI), other industry-specific legislation, and judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People\u2019s Court (SPC). On the basis of the said instruments, two causes of action are provided: claims based on acts of infringement (tort claims) and claims based on contractual relationships (contractual claims).<\/p>\n<p>In tort claims, liability arises when a \u2018product defect\u2019 causes damage to physical and property safety. Externally, product liability is strict in the sense that an injured party may holder either the manufacture or seller liable for the damage, regardless of their fault. Internally, however, the ultimate bearing of liability could be either strict or fault-based, depending on the different roles in the supply chain. Liability for manufacturers is strict in that it shall bear the liability as long as it causes the defect, regardless of its fault. On the other hand, sellers and third parties such as transporters bear fault-based liability. Following these principles, the internal apportionment of product liability among different roles is as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>If the seller is at fault and causes the product defect, the manufacturer may subsequently seek indemnity from the seller after compensating the injured party.<\/li>\n<li>The seller not at fault may require the manufacturer causing the defect to reimburse its losses if the injured party directly holds the seller liable for the damage.<\/li>\n<li>If a third party has fault in causing the defect, the manufacturer or seller, after compensating the injured party, may further seek indemnity from that third party.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In contractual claims, non-conformity of products, including defects and other product flaws to a lesser degree, constitutes a breach of contract. Liability for breaching the contract is generally strict \u2013 that is, the defaulting party shall bear the liability whenever a breach of contract is established, regardless of whether it has any negligence for it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is a \u2018product\u2019 for the purpose of the relevant laws where a cause of action exists?  Is \u2018product\u2019 defined in legislation and, if so, does the definition include tangible products only?  Is there a distinction between products sold to, or intended to be used by consumers, and those sold for use by businesses?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Article 2 of the Product Quality Law, \u2018products\u2019 are defined as goods that are processed or manufactured for sale. This definition excludes construction projects but includes building materials, components, and equipment used therein. Chinese law does not expressly limit \u2018products\u2019 to tangible goods. Indeed, intangible items such as software have also been recognised as products in judicial practice. However, used goods may not be considered to be \u2018products\u2019 subject to the Product Quality Law.<\/p>\n<p>There is no explicit distinction between consumer-use and business-use products, though the remedies available to consumers and businesses may be different. For example, both consumers and businesses are protected under the Civil Code and the Product Quality Law, but only consumers enjoy protection under the PCRI. In some cases, businesses could be viewed as \u2018consumers\u2019 if they purchase the products for routine needs rather than for operation of their business.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who or what entities can bring a claim and for what type(s) of damage? Can a claim be brought on behalf of a deceased person whose death was caused by an allegedly defective product?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Any individuals or entities whose lawful rights and interests have been impaired by a product defect could bring a claim for product liability. If a product defect results in death, the immediate family members of the deceased may file claims on behalf of the deceased. Moreover, as noted in our response to Q28 below, in cases involving multiple injured parties, representative actions and public interest litigation could also be initiated by the affected individuals, or other eligible entities.<\/p>\n<p>In a product liability claim due to product defects, types of compensable damage include (i) personal injury; (ii) property damage, including damage to the defective product itself and other property damages; (iii) mental distress, where applicable; and (iv) punitive damages, as will be discussed in the section below.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What remedies are available against a defendant found liable for a defective product? Are there any restrictions on the types of loss or damage that can be claimed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If the defective product poses potential safety hazards but has not yet caused actual damage, consumers may request cease of infringement, removal of interference and elimination of danger. For example, the business operator may be required to suspend production and\/or sale, provide repair, or order product recall. Where the product defect has already caused harm, the injured party may claim compensation for personal injury and property damage.<\/p>\n<p>Chinese courts generally prioritise compensation for actual losses, while claims for lost profits, punitive damages, and mental distress are subject to stricter limitations. If the injured party contributed to the damage through improper use of the product or other fault, the defendant\u2019s liability will be reduced accordingly. Restrictions on claims for punitive damages are further discussed under Q17.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When is a product defective?  What must be shown in order to prove defect?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Chinese law, \u2018defects\u2019 include design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings or instructions.<\/p>\n<p>There are two approaches to determining a product defect: (i) the statutory standard approach, showing that the product fails to comply with applicable national or industrial standards related to personal or property safety; or (ii) the \u2018unreasonable danger\u2019 approach, showing that the product unreasonably endangers the life or property of others. Notably, a product satisfying all applicable standards may still be considered defective if it is found to have other unreasonable danger.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which party bears the burden of proof?  Can it be reversed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In a product liability dispute arising from a product defect, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (i) existence of the product defect, (ii) occurrence of personal injury or property loss, and (iii) a causal relation between the defect and the injury or loss. However, given the practical difficulty of ordinary consumers establishing the existence of a product defect or a causation, in practice, based on the principle of fairness, courts may only require the plaintiff to present a prima facie case on the three elements for establishing product liability. The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent which shall disprove the existence of the defect or the alleged causation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What factors might the court consider when assessing whether a product is defective?   To what extent might the court account for a breach of regulatory duty, such as a breach of a product safety regulation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As noted in our response to Q5, assessment of product defects principally takes into account (i) any non-compliance with applicable national standards intended to ensure physical and property safety, and (ii) any unreasonable danger posed to physical safety and safety of others\u2019 property. Therefore, breach of regulatory requirement, especially safety-related national standards applicable to the product, could lead to a finding of a product defect. However, it should be noted that such regulatory requirement is only the bottom line for product safety. Even if a product complies with the applicable safety standards, it could still be deemed defective if the product poses any other unreasonable danger to physical and property safety.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who can be held liable for damage caused by a defective product?  If there is more than one entity liable, how is liability apportioned?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The injured party may directly hold either the manufacturer or the seller liable for damage caused by the defective product. While the external liability is strict, the internal apportionment of the liability could be fault-based. Please refer to our response to Q1 for more details.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What defences are available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The respondent may raise procedural and substantive defences. For procedural defences, respondents typically challenge the jurisdiction of the court or the statutory limitations on product liability claims. For substantive defences, the Product Quality Law has listed out three statutory defences:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The product has not been put into circulation;<\/li>\n<li>The defect causing the damage did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation; and<\/li>\n<li>The defect was undetectable given the limited technical capabilities at the time when the product was put into circulation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Additionally, the respondent may also challenge the three basic elements of substantiating a product liability claim as outlined in Q6 above, arguing that no product defect exists, no damage is caused or that no causation is demonstrated. Specifically, the respondent may challenge that (i) the damage is caused by the fault of the injured party, or (ii) the damage is caused by the fault of a third party in the course of the injured party\u2019s use of the product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the relevant limitation period(s) for bringing a claim? Does a different limitation period apply to claims brought on behalf of deceased persons?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>According to the Civil Code, the statutory limitation period for bringing a product liability claim is 3 years, which starts from the date when the injured party knows or should know that its interests are impaired as well as the identity of the infringing party. Courts will normally reject to offer protection for the injured party if it has been more than 20 years since the infringement took place. That said, courts may decide to extend the protection period upon application under special circumstances. The above rules on the statutory limitation period also apply to claims brought on behalf of decreased persons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent can liability be excluded, if at all?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Chinese law does not allow the parties to reach an agreement to exclude liability arising from product defects. However, as outlined in our response to Q9 above, the respondent, either the manufacturer or seller, may resort to the three statutory defences under the Product Quality Law in order to exclude its liability. Separately, the respondent may also challenge the three basic elements for establishing a product liability claim, as noted in our response to Q6 and Q9.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any limitations on the territorial scope of claims brought under a strict liability statutory regime?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Strict liability claims for product defects are subject to territorial restrictions of court jurisdiction and governing law. On one hand, if a product liability case is foreign-related, for example, that the injured party or the manufacturer\/seller is foreign, Chinese courts will have jurisdiction over the dispute if the respondent is domiciled in China, or that the infringing act takes place in China, or that the parties enter into a written agreement on such jurisdiction. Specifically, the place of infringing act could be the place where the act is performed or where the infringing result happens.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, for foreign-related disputes subject to jurisdiction of Chinese courts, the governing law for product liability disputes is not necessarily Chinese law. According to the conflict of laws rules in China, the law of the place of habitual residence of the injured party normally governs a product liability dispute. However, where the infringing party does not engage in any business in the place of the habitual residence of the injured party, or where the injured party directly chooses so, the law of the place of business of the infringing party, or the law of the place where injury occurs shall govern the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What does a claimant need to prove to successfully bring a claim in negligence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As outlined in our response to Q1 above, tort liability for damage caused by product defects is generally strict, and thus the injured party cannot file a separate tort claim on the basis of negligence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what circumstances might a claimant bring a claim in negligence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Please refer to our response to Q13. There is no separate claim in negligence in terms of product liability for defects.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What remedies are available?  Are punitive damages available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Generally, for tort claims (including claims for strict liability), the typical remedies available are discussed in our response to Q4.<\/p>\n<p>In disputes of product quality, buyers or consumers may also seek punitive damages under certain circumstances, which often requires to establish \u2018fault\u2019 of the infringing party.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In cases of damage caused by the product defect, the injured party may further seek punitive damages against the manufacturer or seller if it can prove, in addition to those outlined in Q6, (i) that the manufacturer or seller knows the defect but still continues to manufacture or sell the product or fails to take effective remedial measures, and (ii) that the defect has caused death or serious physical injury. The amount of the damages is equivalent to twice the losses suffered or below.<\/li>\n<li>For product liability cases concerning food and drug safety, claimants may seek punitive damages against manufacturers and sellers of substandard food and drugs (without having to establish the damage), the amount of which is equivalent to 10 times the purchase price, or 3 times the losses, or where such amount does not exceed RMB 1,000, RMB 1,000. Notably, claimants may seek punitive damages against the manufacturer without having to establish that the manufacturer explicitly \u2018knows\u2019 that the product manufactured has quality issues.<\/li>\n<li>As mandated by the PCRI, in contractual claims due to product non-conformity, the consumer may also claim punitive damages against the seller on the basis of consumer fraud. The amount of damages is equivalent to 3 time the purchase price, or RMB 500 \u2013 whichever is higher. To substantiate a fraud claim, the consumer needs to prove (i) existence of a fraudulent act (for example, quality of the product sold does not correspond to the statement to consumers), (ii) fraudulent intention of the seller, and (iii) that the fraudulent act causes the consumer to purchase the product based on a false assumption. For clarify, while consumers claiming breach of contract could at the same time claim the said punitive damages, such claim by its nature is a tort claim in that the act infringes consumers\u2019 right to know and that the business operator is held liable only when it is established that it has a fraudulent intention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If there are multiple tortfeasors, how is liability apportioned?  Can a claimant bring contribution proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Please refer to our responses to Q1 and Q13. Under Chinese law, liability for damage caused by products defects is generally strict, meaning that the injured party can seek full compensation against either the manufacturer or the seller, without proposing any apportionment of liability or bringing specific contribution proceedings. However, as noted under Q1, internally, the party being sued for compensation is entitled to request the other party causing the defect to reimburse its losses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any defences available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Generally, for defences against product liability claims, please refer to our response to Q9.<\/p>\n<p>For a punitive damages claim, depending on the circumstances giving rise to the claim, the respondent may rely on the following defences.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>For punitive damages due to product defects causing serious damage, the business operator may argue that it does not \u2018know\u2019 that the product has defects when manufacturing or selling the product.<\/li>\n<li>For punitive damages due to production or sale of substandard food or drugs, as noted under Q30, a new judicial interpretation adopted in 2024 elaborates on the defence rules. Notably, the respondent may also argue that the buyer (or consumer) is \u2018bad-faith\u2019, pointing to the facts that the buyer clearly knows the quality issues but still purchases large quantities in order to profit from the claims, or that the buyer engages in fraudulent acts.<\/li>\n<li>For punitive damages due to consumer fraud, the respondent may argue that it bears no fraudulent intention. Moreover, based on the specific circumstances, it may further argue that the alleged fraud has not caused the consumer to buy the product, i.e., the alleged fraud produces no misleading effect.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the relevant limitation period(s) for bringing a claim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Please refer to our response to Q10.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent can liability be excluded, if at all?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Please see our response to Q11 for discussion of excluding strict liability. Moreover, Chinese law does not permit the parties to agree on the exclusion or limitation of liability for punitive damages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the laws governing contractual liability provide for any implied terms that could impose liability where the product that is the subject of the contract is defective or does not comply with the terms of sale?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In order to bring a contractual claim, the buyer must demonstrate non-conformity of the product. As stipulated by the Product Quality Law and PCRI, non-conformity could be established in two ways: (i) non-compliance with the product standard provided on the product or its packaging, or the quality condition indicated by the product manual or sample, or more generally, (ii) failure to possess the properties required for normal use. For clarity, non-conformity may either pertain to a product defect causing harm to physical safety and security of others\u2019 properties, or a \u2018product flaw\u2019 to a lesser degree.<\/p>\n<p>Under a contractual claim, the buyer may seek remedies that are already set out in the contract, or rely on the Civil Code and Product Quality Law that provide for the statutory liabilities for breaching the contract. Specifically, the buyer may request repair, replacement or return of the product, reduction of the sales price, or, where the product flaw defeats the purpose of the contract, request termination of the contract. The buyer may also claim compensation if it suffers losses from the product non-conformity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What remedies are available, and from whom?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Please refer to our response to Q20 above. Moreover, in cases where the contractual breach is due to the failure of the manufacturer or other product suppliers to discharge their own responsibilities, the seller may further require the parties at fault to reimburse its losses after bearing the contractual liability.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What damages are available to consumers and businesses in the event of a contractual breach?  Are punitive damages available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Pursuant to the prior agreement, consumers and businesses may claim liquidated damages for breaching the contract, the amount of which could be adjusted by court if it is unreasonably high. Absent agreement on liquidated damages, the party may also directly request compensatory damages, the amount of which shall be determined on the basis of the losses caused by the breach. Such compensatory damages shall not exceed the losses that the breaching party foresaw or should foresee when concluding the contract. For a contractual claim concerning product non-conformity, the flaws have usually not caused losses beyond the product itself.<\/p>\n<p>Punitive damages are not available under a contractual claim. However, in cases of consumer fraud due to sale of non-conforming products, consumers are entitled to seek punitive damages in the same proceedings. Please refer to our response to Q15 above.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent can liability be excluded, if at all?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For contractual liability due to \u2018product flaws\u2019 (not amounting to defects), the Civil Code allows the parties to agree on limitation or exclusion of the seller\u2019s liability for product flaws. However, such waiver shall not apply if the seller by purpose or with gross negligence fails to inform the buyer of the product flaws. Similarly, the Product Quality Law and PCRI also allow to exclude the liability for product flaws, provided that consumers are informed of the flaws in advance and that the flaws do not contravene any mandatory rules.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, the said limitation clauses are subject to control of waivers and standard terms under the Civil Code. Specifically, the Civil Code prohibits any waivers of liabilities for causing physical harm or causing property damage by purpose or with gross negligence. For standard terms drafted in advance for repeated use, courts may consider the clauses to be void if they unreasonably exclude or alleviate the seller\u2019s responsibilities or restrict the rights of the buyers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any defences available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As noted under Q1, contractual liability under Chinese law is also a form of strict liability in that the breaching party shall be held liable regardless of whether it has negligence for breaching the contract. Therefore, the breaching party may not defend itself based on lack of negligence.<\/p>\n<p>However, as noted under Q23, sellers could rely on the parties\u2019 prior agreement on limitation or exclusion of the liabilities for product liabilities. For example, the seller may argue that the buyer is informed of the flaw when entering into the agreement. However, such defence is not applicable if the product flaw violates mandatory provisions of laws or if the buyer does not know that the flaw would result in substantial reduction of the product value.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, the seller may also argue that the buyer raises no objection to product quality within the agreed period for testing or within a reasonable period after receiving the product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please summarise the rules governing the disclosure of documents in product liability claims and outline the types of documents that are typically disclosed.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The civil proceedings under the Chinese law do not provide for a separate document disclosure procedure. As a general principle, each party shall bear the evidentiary burden of proving its own claim. However, under specific circumstances, courts may, either upon application by the parties or on its own motion, conduct investigation and collection of evidence.<\/p>\n<p>For example, when the parties could not present the evidence due to certain \u2018objective difficulties\u2019, they may apply to the court for collection of the evidence. In cases where documentary evidence is kept by the opposing party, the party bearing the burden of proof may request the court to order the opposing party to submit such documentary evidence. Refusal to submit could lead to a presumption that content of such documentary evidence as alleged by the applicant is true.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, courts may collect evidence on its own motion when they consider such evidence necessary for adjudicating the cases \u2013 for example, when they believe that the evidence concerns damage to public interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are product liability claims usually funded?  Is third party litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction and, if so, is it regulated?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In general, the third-party litigation funding system is not established in China. However, recent years have also seen certain public welfare foundation providing support for consumer public-interest litigation or litigation filed by individual consumers whose lawful rights are impaired. On the other hand, under specific circumstances, litigants may apply for postponement, reduction or exemption of the litigation fees incurred in the case. For example, courts shall grant the postponement request filed by injured parties seeking compensation in product quality incidents.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can a successful party recover its costs from a losing party?  Can lawyers charge a percentage uplift on their costs?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>By law, courts shall decide the proportion of litigation costs to be borne by each party based on the specific circumstances of the case. Such costs, covering case acceptance fees as well as fees incurred by third parties such as inspectors and translators, are generally to be borne by the losing party.<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to agreement with their clients, lawyers may charge certain percentage of the total disputed amount as a contingency fee. However, the Chinese law does not establish a general rule on the bearing of attorney\u2019s fees. In product quality disputes, absent parties\u2019 prior agreement with clear stipulation on bearing of attorney fees, courts may not support the request to order the losing the party to bear the attorney\u2019s fees incurred by the winning party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can product liability claims be brought by way of a group or class action procedure?  If so, please outline the mechanisms available and whether they provide for an \u2018opt-in\u2019 or \u2018opt-out\u2019 procedure.  Which mechanism(s) is most commonly used for product liability claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Chinese law, there is no group or class action procedure as they exist in the US. However, China does provide for public interest litigation and representative litigation when a product quality dispute affects multiple individuals.<\/p>\n<p>Representative litigation can be brought by multiple injured individuals involved in a product quality dispute. Such litigation also sets out an \u2018opt-in\u2019 procedure. Specifically, the court may publish an announcement to notify potential plaintiffs to register as plaintiffs. The registered plaintiffs can nominate co-plaintiffs to be their representatives and participate in the litigation on their behalf. The judgment issued in these cases will bind registered plaintiffs. However, if unregistered parties file separate claims, the judgment over the same subject matter will apply and bind the unregistered parties in those claims as well.<\/p>\n<p>Public interest litigation is also permitted in product quality disputes. Either consumer associations or procuratorates may initiate such litigation if the product quality issues are considered to affect legitimate interests of multiple consumers. This type of litigation does not involve an \u2018opt-in\u2019 or \u2018opt-out\u2019 mechanism for consumers, since the compensation in such litigation is remitted to the state treasury or public welfare foundation rather than being allocated to individual consumers. In practice, for the same product quality dispute, the public interest litigation could be followed by representative litigation. The former aims to establish the illegal acts of the business operator, without seeking compensation, while the latter facilitates compensation for individual consumers on the factual basis as determined in the public interest litigation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please provide details of any new significant product liability cases in your jurisdiction in the last 12 months.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>On 29 January 2026, the SPC, the Supreme People\u2019s Procuratorate and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly released a batch of typical cases addressing abusive consumer claims. Particularly, in one case, a claimant purchased large quantities of non-compliant food products and sought ten-times punitive damages. The court held that compensation should be limited to purchases within the scope of reasonable personal consumption and rejected recovery for the excessive portion.<\/p>\n<p>On 11 September 2025, the SPC published typical cases on campus food safety. Among which is a case where a supermarket sold expired food to students. Although the value of the goods was only RMB 4, the court ordered RMB 1,000 punitive damages because the seller knowingly sold food that failed to meet safety standards.<\/p>\n<p>On 16 June 2025, the SPC released typical cases concerning online consumption. In one case, a livestream seller promised \u201cten-fold compensation for counterfeits\u201d, while the delivered product did not meet the promised quality. The court held that the seller\u2019s representation formed part of the sales contract and awarded ten-times purchase price compensation to the consumer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any policy proposals and\/or regulatory and legal developments that could impact the current product liability framework, particularly given the advancements in new technologies and increasing focus on the circular economy?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In June 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued the Announcement on Further Strengthening Recall Supervision of Consumer Products Sold Online. The announcement requires e-commerce operators to establish mechanisms for collecting defect information and disclose recall information, and requires platforms to take measures to stop continued online sales of defective products.<\/p>\n<p>In September 2024, the SPC released the judicial interpretation on the tort chapter of the Civil Code. Most notably, the judicial interpretation allows an injured party of product defect to claim compensation of damage to (i) the defective product itself and (ii) other property damages, in the same proceedings for the tort claim of product liability. Originally, an injured party may need to file a contractual claim and a tort claim respectively in order to claim the two types of damage. This new arrangement is aimed to facilitate the legal remedy for damage caused by product defects.<\/p>\n<p>In September 2024, the SPC also released the judicial interpretation on punitive damages granted in food and drugs cases. The judicial interpretation details the rules as to in what scenarios punitive damages claims raised by \u2018bad-faith\u2019 consumers shall not be supported. The new interpretation also provides guidelines on punitive damages claims resulting from flaws of product labels or manuals.<\/p>\n<p>Notably, in October 2023, the State Administration for Market Regulation released a new draft of the Product Quality Law for public comments. The draft, though not yet finalized, reflects revision to key issues of product liability. For example, the draft clarifies that importers shall bear the same liability as manufacturers and\/or sellers. The draft aims to introduce specialized quality rules for sensitive products such as children\u2019s products and products for the elderly. The draft also intends to unify the current two standards of product defects into one single standard \u2013 the standard of \u2018unreasonable danger\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What trends are likely to impact upon product liability litigation in the future?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In light of the latest updates of legislation and judicial practice discussed above, notable trends impacting product liability litigation in the future may include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Strengthened supervision of online consumption and livestream sales;<\/li>\n<li>Limitation on abusive or bad-faith consumer claims; and<\/li>\n<li>Strengthened supervision of sensitive products including, among others, food, drugs, and children\u2019s products.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4987<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/137094","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}