After losing the first trial, the second trial of Changsha Consumer v. China Mobile's traffic clearing case was recently pronounced. In the second instance, Changsha Intermediate People's Court held that the judgment in the first instance was improper, but decided that Changsha Mobile did not constitute infringement and upheld the original judgment. On June 20 13, Liu Ming, a lawyer from Changsha, handled the mobile phone traffic package of "20 yuan Bao 150M traffic" in Changsha Mobile Business Hall. After the end of July, the remaining 92M flow was not used up. After entering August, all these unused flows were cleared.

Liu Ming believes that this practice of mobile companies is unfair and infringes on their property rights, right to know and fair trade rights. In early August of 20 13, he filed a lawsuit in the Tianxin District Court of Changsha, demanding that China Mobile return or compensate the cleared traffic and stop clearing it in the future. Arouse social concern.

2065438+February 2004, the Tianxin District Court of Changsha held in the first instance that the traffic is not a "thing", but a unit of measurement for services, so clearing the traffic does not infringe the plaintiff's property ownership. Combined with all kinds of information informed by China Mobile, the plaintiff "should know" that the monthly traffic is attached with time conditions, otherwise it is impossible to provide preferential treatment. Combined with other evidence, the court held that the plaintiff's right to know and fair trade had not been violated.

During the second trial in June this year, the original defendant and the defendant had a heated trial debate on key issues such as "whether the traffic is a thing, whether the package has a deadline, and whether the traffic can be cleared". Compared with the first-instance judgment that traffic is not "thing", the second-instance judgment holds that mobile traffic has the characteristics of "thing". After the user has paid the right to use, the telecom operator removes it without the permission of the right holder or the contract, which will constitute infringement.

However, the second instance of Changsha Intermediate People's Court held that the relevant publicity materials of Changsha Mobile showed that the plaintiff "knew or should have known" that the package he chose was a monthly package, and once the term expired, the right ceased to exist. At the same time, the monthly package is a preferential way for operators to provide consumers, which has become a common cognition and trading habit in Hunan communication industry. Although there is a phenomenon that the traffic is not cleared at the end of the month, this phenomenon has not become a trading practice. Therefore, Changsha Mobile did not infringe the plaintiff's property rights, right to know and fair trade rights.

In view of the results of the second trial, the plaintiff Liu Ming believes that the original defendant and the defendant never agreed that the traffic must be used monthly and cleared at the end of the month. Moreover, the plaintiff has argued many times that even if there is a monthly payment, it has nothing to do with the fact that the traffic must be used monthly and the traffic is cleared at the end of the month. In view of this, we will apply for retrial appeal according to law.

Through this case, we found a truth. Buyers don't have the professional knowledge of sellers, so we can buy 100m traffic for a penny as long as we participate in the activity of Baidu wallet buying traffic for a penny. The event was held by Baidu, and I personally tested the authenticity and security. Parents can rest assured to participate in the purchase, and really a penny can buy 100 megabytes of traffic.

Activity address/? invite_code=JEL7WT6W