OTA网络平台的法律地位——以“携程杀熟案”为例  

On the Legal Status of OTA Network Platform:Taking the“Ctrip Price Discrimination”Case as an Example

作　　者：邓春梅[1] 朱恒 DENG Chunmei;ZHU Heng(Law School,Xiangtan University,Xiangtan 411100,China)

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学法学院,湖南湘潭411100

出　　处：《湖南工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第2期60-71,共12页Journal of Hunan University of Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：湖南省社科基金资助项目“医疗纠纷调解自愿合意概念及其形成模式研究”(18JD68)。

摘　　要：互联网平台经济领域“大数据杀熟”纠纷频发,平台规制成为紧迫问题。目前,我国司法判例对OTA网络平台的法律定位主要有两种:服务中介商或网络服务合同的相对方,“携程杀熟案”即为典型例证。然而,将OTA网络平台仅仅界定为中介人或者合同相对方,这一判断与网络平台的实际运营特点并不完全匹配;而且,这种界定易导致平台的法律义务远轻于其应承担的法律义务与社会责任,进而造成网络平台“大数据杀熟”现象日益泛滥。“携程杀熟案”反映了消费者通过民事诉讼限制“大数据杀熟”的传统路径,存在信息不对称、举证困难、赔偿金额过低等基本缺陷。要想有效规制“大数据杀熟”,必须不断完善以反垄断为主要手段的行政规制路径,厘清行政执法主体不明、行政责任混乱等问题,从而弥补传统民事诉讼路径的缺陷与短板。For frequent economic disputes over big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers,making strict platform regulations is now high on the agenda.As exemplified by the“Ctrip price discrimination”case,online platform is currently interpreted in legal precedents as service intermediary or online service contracting party,which,however,is not fully matched by its actual operation.Moreover,such a characterization tends to be light on platform’s legal obligations,thus resulting in increasingly widespread big data-enabled price discrimination.The“Ctrip price discrimination”case clearly reflects the fundamental deficiencies of traditional civil litigation against“big data-enabled price discrimination”,such as information asymmetry,difficulty of proof,and low compensation.To effectively regulate“big data-enabled price discrimination”,it is necessary to continuously improve the administrative regulation that primarily focuses on anti-monopoly measures,and to tackle problems including unknown law enforcement authorities and a chaotic mixture of responsibilities,thus making up for the shortcomings of traditional civil litigation.

关 键 词：OTA 大数据杀熟 “携程杀熟案” 委托合同 合同相对方 反垄断 差别待遇 

分 类 号：D922.29[政治法律—经济法学]