Does it constitute fraud? The trial judge interpreted that the "diamond non stick pot" purchased for 3235 yuan has almost no diamond diamonds | PTFE | composition

Nowadays, many families prefer non stick pots when cooking. Due to the fact that the mainstream non stick pot coatings on the market mostly use polytetrafluoroethylene as the raw material, improper operations such as long-term dry burning in an empty pot may lead to excessive temperatures, which may decompose into carcinogenic substances. So, some merchants use marketing concepts such as "Maifanshi coating," "sapphire coating," and "diamond coating" to promote these so-called new generation healthy non stick pots.

After seeing the relevant promotion, Xiao Wang spent more than 3000 yuan to purchase a non stick pot that claimed to use "high hardness diamonds" as a non stick coating. However, he later learned that the so-called diamond non stick coating of this pot only contained trace amounts of diamond components, and the main component was still polytetrafluoroethylene. Therefore, Xiao Wang sued the court and demanded that the merchant "compensate three for one fake".

Recently, after the second trial of this case, the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing ruled that the merchant's promotion of the non stick pot coating as "diamond non stick coating" was misleading consumers, and changed the ruling to confirm that the merchant's behavior constituted fraud. The ruling supported the consumer's lawsuit request.

The court found that Xiao Wang had previously taken a liking to a set of "Extraordinary Diamond" series non stick pots on a certain online shopping platform. The merchant promoted its coating as "diamond non stick coating" on the details page, and extensively used words such as "diamond" and "high hardness diamond" as the main selling points. The seller emphasized this selling point with statements such as "diamond non stick coating uses plasma technology to gasify diamonds at a high temperature of 20000 degrees Celsius and pour the surface of the pot, which has good wear resistance and corrosion resistance characteristics, making the non stick characteristics of the pot even better".

Xiao Wang spent 3235 yuan to buy this non stick pot, but after using it, he found that the non stick coating on the bottom of the pot had peeled off. After consulting the merchant, they denied that there was a quality issue with the product and provided a testing report.

Upon closer inspection, Xiao Wang found that the testing report showed that the so-called "diamond non stick coating" by the merchant only contained trace amounts of diamond components, and the main material was still polytetrafluoroethylene. Xiao Wang believed that the merchant had misled the main ingredients through propaganda, so he sued the court and demanded that the merchant pay three times the punitive damages.

The merchant argued that according to national standards, the chemical composition of diamond is mainly C, and after testing, the main components of the "Extraordinary Diamond" series of non stick pots it sells are polytetrafluoroethylene and trace amounts of diamond. The testing report shows that the product contains diamond, so there is no false advertising.

The first instance court held that although the defendant did not separately label the main material polytetrafluoroethylene in the coating on the product details page, only labeled the product material as "aluminum alloy, diamond non stick coating", according to multiple quality inspection reports, there were indeed trace amounts of diamond, aluminum, polytetrafluoroethylene, silicon dioxide and other components in the kitchenware material. Therefore, Xiao Wang believed that the merchant's claim of false advertising and fraudulent sales had no factual or legal basis, and the first instance court did not support it. Therefore, Xiao Wang's lawsuit was rejected.

Xiao Wang was dissatisfied and appealed to the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court.

The second instance court held that the product in question only highlighted a small amount of diamond components during sales promotion, but did not indicate the main components. Combined with a selling price of over 3000 yuan, it can be determined that the seller's sales behavior constituted fraud and should bear punitive compensation liability. Based on this, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court finally revoked the first instance judgment and ordered the merchant to compensate Xiao Wang 9705 yuan.

Exaggerating propaganda to mislead consumers constitutes fraud

After the second instance court hearing, the court stated that the merchant used "diamond" and "high hardness diamonds" as the main promotional terms for the involved goods, and used "cut and wear-resistant high hardness diamonds, diamond non stick coatings with good non stickiness" and "diamond non stick coatings with plasma technology to gasify diamonds at a high temperature of 20000 degrees Celsius and pour the surface of the pot with good wear resistance and corrosion resistance" on the non stick coating. According to the usual understanding, consumers would think that the coating of this "diamond non stick coating" should be mainly made of diamonds. According to the testing report provided by the defendant, the main material of the involved commodity coating is polytetrafluoroethylene, as well as trace amounts of diamond.

In fact, the detailed introduction of the product did not mention the main component of polytetrafluoroethylene, but only highlighted the trace diamond component. Considering the price of the involved product at 3235 yuan, the court believes that the statement "diamond non stick coating" will inevitably mislead consumers that the involved product is diamond coated. The seller's sales behavior is exaggerated and constitutes consumer fraud.

Honesty and trustworthiness are the moral foundation of the Chinese nation. Citizens should shape an honest personality, and businesses should also establish an honest and trustworthy reputation system. Only by being honest and trustworthy can more commercial benefits be brought. The non stick pot product in this case has updated its coating process and added diamond to achieve better wear resistance, which is worthy of encouragement and support. This is not only a market demand but also a manifestation of technological progress. However, when promoting the materials and functions of new products, merchants should fulfill their obligation to truthfully inform consumers and fulfill their right to know. Otherwise, consumers who mistakenly believe in the wear resistance of diamond coatings and do not follow the operating procedures of non stick pans will actually reduce the service life of the product, leading to more unnecessary conflicts and disputes. This is also the significance of changing the judgment in this case.

The judge reminded that for consumers, if they encounter fraudulent behavior similar to this case, they can negotiate with false advertising merchants in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and demand that they fulfill the obligation of "refund, compensation, and compensation"; If the negotiation fails, consumers can seek help from consumer associations and market supervision departments, or file a lawsuit with the people's court. To protect their legitimate rights and interests, consumers should keep detailed evidence of consumption, including but not limited to screenshots of product details, transaction records, chat records with merchants, etc. If necessary, they can also apply to the court for judicial appraisal of the products to prove that the merchants have engaged in consumer fraud.