Product Liability & Safety 2025 Comparisons

“Products” in the context of Chinese law refer to goods that have been processed or manufactured for sale. In China, a combination of laws, regulations and rules issued by the legislative and administrative agencies, as well as interpretations issued by the judicial organs, together form a complicated legal framework regulating product safety. The key legal instruments governing product safety include the following.

General Laws

General legislation governing product safety includes:

• the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (the “Civil Code”), effective as of 1 January 2021;
• the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China, effective as of 1 September 1993, amended on 29 December 2018; and
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, effective as of 1 January 1994, amended on 25 October 2013.

Sector-Specific Laws

A number of laws and regulations regulate the safety and quality of specific products. These sector-specific instruments include:

• the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 June 2009, amended on 29 April 2021);
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products (effective as of 1 November 2006, amended on 2 September 2022);
• the Pharmaceutical Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 July 1985, amended on 26 August 2019);
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Import and Export Commodity Inspection (effective as of 1 August 1989, amended on 29 April 2021);
• the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products (effective as of 1 January 2013, amended on 2 March 2019);
• the Regulation on the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (effective as of 1 April 2000, amended on 6 December 2024);
• the Implementing Regulation for the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 20 July 2009, amended on 11 October 2019);
• the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Quality and Safety of Food-Related Products (effective as of 1 March 2023);
• the Measures for the Implementation of the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products (effective as of 1 January 2016, amended on 23 October 2020);
• the Provisions on Administration of Motor Vehicle Emission Recalls (effective as of 1 July 2021);
• the Interim Provisions on Administration of Consumer Product Recalls (effective as of 1 January 2020); and
• the Administrative Measures for Medical Device Recalls (effective as of 1 May 2017).

Product Standardisation

According to the Standardisation Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 April 1989, amended on 4 November 2017), the National Standardisation Administration is responsible for administering the standardisation of products. To date, the National Standardisation Administration has released many national standards providing detailed guidelines on the safety assurance of specific products.

Standards in China can be either mandatory or recommended. Standards beginning with “GB” contain mandatory requirements; eg, the Hygienic Standard for Dried Fruits (GB 16325-2005) and the Stipulation Protecting Drivers From Injury by Motor Vehicle Steering Mechanism (GB 11557-2011). The standards beginning with “GB/T” are recommended; eg, the Education Robot Safety Requirements (GB/T 33265-2016) and the Description Specification on the Risk Information of Consumer Products Safety (GB/T 30135-2013).

Under the current product quality regulatory framework in China, administrative authorities exercise two types of regulatory powers: general and specific.

General Regulatory Authority

The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) and local market supervision authorities are responsible for supervising and regulating product quality and safety, covering products manufactured in China and products imported into China. In addition, market supervision authorities are also responsible for the punishment of illegal activities related to product quality. The National Standardisation Administration, as a branch of the SAMR, organises, co-ordinates and supervises the implementation of standards, including standards on product quality and safety.

Regulatory Authority for Specific Products

Other than the general regulatory authority described above, specific regulators also have the power to supervise product safety in the relevant industrial sectors. For example, the National Medical Products Administration is in charge of the supervision and administration of product safety in the drugs, medical devices and cosmetics sector.

Under Chinese law, if a product is found to be defective after it is put into circulation, the manufacturer and the seller must promptly adopt remedial measures or commence corrective actions. Common remedies required by law include suspending sales, providing warnings, and implementing defective product recalls.

Suspending Sales

When a manufacturer or seller identifies defects in its products, it is required by law to suspend manufacturing, sale or importation of the products.

Providing Warnings

A warning refers to a reminder of the relevant dangers associated with the product, or an explanation of how to correctly use the product to avoid these dangers. It is important to direct users’ attention to existing or potential dangers so as to prevent or reduce harm.

Requirements to provide warnings are generally stated in specific product recall regulations. For example, under the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products, the manufacturer of defective automotive products is required to notify automobile owners of the defect in its automobile product and the emergency steps to take to avoid damages or harm.

Implementing Product Recalls

A manufacturer is required to make a recall when it is informed, by way of self-check, reports or complaints by the general public, or notification from a regulatory department, that the products it produces or sells are defective. Where the manufacturer fails to make a recall, or the relevant quality inspection departments deem it necessary, the regulatory authorities may order a product recall to be conducted. Detailed procedures and requirements for conducting product recalls are usually found in the regulations for specific products as discussed below.

Recall of consumer products

The Interim Provisions on the Administration of Consumer Product Recalls Defects regulate the recall of consumer products. Under the regulations, recall is necessary when defects that could cause unreasonable danger compromising personal and/or property safety are found in the same batch, model number or type of consumer goods, due to issues with the product design, manufacturing, warning, etc. Recall information must be published in a “well-known” publication that is easily accessible to the public. Such well-known publications include newspapers and periodicals, websites, and radio and television channels.

Recall of defective automotive products

The Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products regulate recalls of automotive products. According to these regulations, the SAMR supervises and administers the recall of defective automotive products in China. When defects are found to exist in the same batch, model number or type of automotive product due to issues with product design, manufacturing or labels, a manufacturer must prepare a recall plan, communicate the plan to the automobile sellers, and file the plan with the SAMR. The manufacturer is also required to release recall information in an easily accessible manner to the general public.

In addition, pursuant to the Administrative Regulations on Motor Vehicle Emissions Recall, China has also introduced an emission recall system for motor vehicles, under which vehicle manufacturers are required to recall motor vehicles with “emission hazards”. The emission recall regime is administered by the SAMR jointly with the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. 

Recall of medical devices

Under the Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls, medical device recalls are divided into three classes according to the severity of the defects:

• Class I recall – use of the medical device may cause or have caused serious health hazards;
• Class II recall – use of the medical device may cause or have caused temporary or reversible health hazards; and
• Class III recall – use of the medical device has a lower likelihood of causing a hazard but such medical device still needs to be recalled.

The different classes of recalls follow different notification time limits and the recall announcements require different levels of media exposure, according to the class.

The Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls require “medical device manufacturers” (including the medical device registrant or filing holder, or the domestic agent appointed by the overseas manufacturer of imported medical devices) to be responsible for co-ordinating product recalls. However, it should be noted that under the latest Regulation on Administration and Supervision of Medical Devices, the recall obligation explicitly lies with the medical device registrant or filing holder – including those of the imported medical devices.

Where a manufacturer or a seller has discovered a defect in its goods or services, which may harm personal safety or property security, it must immediately report the defect to the relevant administrative authorities. This reporting obligation is widely required in many recall regulations for specific products.

Under the Measures for the Implementation of the Regulation on the Administration of the Recall of Defective Auto Products, upon learning of potential defects in its automobile products, the manufacturer must organise an investigation and analysis thereof, and truthfully report the result to the SAMR. Sellers, repairers, rental service providers or spare part manufacturers are also required to report any defects they identify in their business operation to the SAMR and notify the manufacturer of such information.

Under the current Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls, a medical device manufacturer must immediately report any of its medical device products that are found to be defective to the provincial food and drug supervision and administration department. Medical device operation enterprises and users are also required to immediately report to their provincial food and drug supervision and administration department and notify the manufacturer or supplier of defects. In particular, if the medical device user is a medical institution, it must also report device defects to its provincial health administrative department. Please also note that, as discussed in 1.3 Obligations to Commence Corrective Action, while the measures impose the recall duty on the “medical device manufacturer”, the latest Regulation on Administration and Supervision of Medical Devices uniformly requires “medical device registrants and filing holders” to bear the ultimate recall duty. In other words, for imported medical devices, the corresponding foreign registrant or filing holder is also subject to the recall duty.

Failure to comply with product safety obligations may give rise to civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities.

Civil Liability

If a product with quality issues causes personal injury or property damage, the manufacturer must compensate any losses suffered by the infringed person. Product liability for the manufacturer is a form of strict liability under Chinese law, which means that the manufacturer is liable for damages regardless of whether there is any fault on their part. The seller, on the other hand, is liable for damages only if it is at fault for the injury or loss. However, the infringed person may also bring claims directly against the seller. If the fault ultimately lies with the manufacturer, the seller may ask the manufacturer to reimburse its damages after it compensates the plaintiff. Separately, if the quality issue arises from the fault of a third party ‒ such as a transporter ‒ the manufacturer or seller, after compensating the injured party, may seek reimbursement from that third party for the losses incurred.

The manufacturer and the seller also bear liability when their failure to adopt prompt and effective corrective actions leads to aggravated damages. In addition, if the manufacturer or seller knowingly continues to manufacture or sell a defective product, or fails to take effective remedial measures, and the defect results in death or serious damage to the health of another person, the manufacturer or seller will be liable for punitive compensation. Such punitive compensation will be determined by the court on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative Liability

The regulatory government authorities may impose administrative sanctions on manufacturers and sellers when their product fails to conform to product safety standards, including by requesting rectification of defect, imposing fines, ceasing the operation, and revoking the business licence.

In addition, the manufacturer and seller might also be subject to administrative penalties if they do not perform their product recall obligations. For example, where an automobile manufacturer breaches the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products by failing to stop manufacturing the products, selling or importing defective auto products, withholding information about the defects or refusing to implement a recall as ordered, the regulatory authorities may order it to make correction, impose a fine of 1–10% of the monetary value of the defective products, and confiscate any illegal gains.

Criminal Liability

If the products are found to have caused death, serious personal injury, or serious property damage, the responsible manufacturers and sellers may be criminally liable. For example, in one criminal case, the defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 years and ordered to compensate for medical fees, nursing fees, funeral expenses and other costs of the victim’s family for knowingly selling counterfeit medicines, which caused the death of the victim (see Case (2018) Liao 02 Xing Chu No 59, decided by Dalian Intermediate People’s Court, Liaoning Province).

Causes of Action

Flaws in the product itself

Firstly, a buyer can bring a claim in respect of flaws in a product where the flaw poses no safety risk and has not caused any losses beyond the product itself. Under Chinese laws, a product must conform to the quality standards or specifications as presented by the manufacturer and seller. The buyer (or consumer) can claim against the seller for repair, replacement or return, and for any further damages caused, if a product falls within one of the following categories:

• the product does not have the properties required for use and the buyer (or consumer) has not been informed of the flaws in advance;
• the product quality does not conform to the standards specified on the product or its packaging; or
• the product does not meet the quality stated in the instructions for use or demonstrated via samples provided.

It should be noted that a claim based on such flaws is, by nature, a contractual claim since it arises from the seller breaching the contract by selling products that fail to meet the quality standards agreed upon by the parties.

Flaws that cause harm

Secondly, a manufacturer or seller, or both, will be held liable in tort if they have manufactured or sold a product that poses a safety hazard and causes harm to a person’s life or property. In addition to damage caused to property and physical health, the injured party may also claim compensation for mental distress if the defective product causes “severe mental damage”, as provided by the Civil Code.

In general, the finding of product liability depends on three elements:

• the product being defective;
• the damage or loss suffered; and
• the causal relationship between the defective product and the damage.

Among these elements, the most important condition is whether a product is defective. In this regard, product defects have been categorised into three classes: design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings or instructions. As noted in the Civil Code, even if the safety defect has not yet resulted in actual damage, the infringed party has the right to request the elimination of the hazard, which may take the form of suspension of manufacturing/sales, product repair, or product recall.

According to Article 46 of the Product Quality Law, there are two tests to determine the existence of product defect: (i) a statutory standard, which considers a product to be defective if it fails to meet one of the applicable national or industry standards on personal or property safety; and (ii) an “unreasonable danger” standard, which considers a product to be defective if it unreasonably endangers the life or property of the consumer. In practice, even if a product meets the relevant national or industry standard, the court will still proceed to examine whether it meets a reasonable person’s expectations regarding product safety. Therefore, compliance with the statutory standard alone does not necessarily exempt a product from liability.

In cases of product defects, aside from tort claims, the buyer may also file a contractual claim against the seller for selling defective products that do not comply with the terms of the agreement.

Administrative penalties

Thirdly, manufacturers and sellers of defective products may also be subject to administrative penalties. For example, if the product manufactured or sold is not in conformity with the national and industry standards regarding human life and health, personal safety or property safety, the regulatory authorities can stop the manufacture and sale of defective products, confiscate the defective products, impose fines on the manufacturer and seller, and even revoke their business licence(s).

Criminal penalties

Finally, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 October 1997, with 12 amendments so far) contains product-related crimes relating to the manufacturing and sale of fake and shoddy products in various sectors including food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Manufacturers and sellers will face criminal penalties in cases of severe product liability consequences triggering one of these crimes.

Sources of Law

In the context of civil disputes, the following key legal instruments governing product liability allow the victim to raise claims against the manufacturer or the seller of products for losses caused by the product flaw to the product itself, and damages to personal or property safety:

• the Civil Code;
• the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (PCRI); and
• the Product Quality Law.

Over the years, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) has also issued a series of judicial interpretations in relation to specific issues arising in product liability cases. These judicial instruments guide courts in their interpretation of key statutory definitions and concepts.

Since China is a civil law country, the principle of stare decisis does not apply in product liability litigation. However, judges may still be guided by precedents, particularly if found in judgments of the SPC or other superior courts addressing similar facts or legal issues, or if the area of law is unsettled. Among these judgments, “Guiding Cases”, as designated by the SPC or the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, are of precedential value and should be referenced and followed by courts when adjudicating similar cases.

Apart from civil liability, product quality disputes may also give rise to administrative liabilities. In this regard, the Product Quality Law, the PCRI and other laws and regulations for specific products set out the power of the administrative authorities to supervise product liability and to issue administrative penalties.

Lastly, criminal penalties could also be triggered in cases where the product quality issue has resulted in severe and far-ranging consequences. As mentioned above, Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Criminal Law contains a section titled “Crimes of Manufacturing and Selling Fake and Shoddy Goods”. This section specifically provides strict criminal penalties in respect of the manufacturing and selling of fake or defective products that severely infringe upon consumers’ interests.

In China’s legal system, consumers and other infringed individuals or entities have standing to bring claims for product liability if their rights or interests are impaired. An individual or entity can file a litigation against the manufacturer or seller in court based on a contractual relationship or an act of infringement.

Multiple injured individuals involved in a product liability case may have standing to bring representative litigation. If the number of injured individuals is unspecified, the court could 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 all registered plaintiffs. If unregistered parties file additional claims, the original judgment will apply and bind the unregistered parties in those claims as well.

Lastly, public welfare institutions, organisations or the state procuratorate may file public interest litigations when the legitimate rights or interests of multiple consumers have been harmed. For example, the China Consumers Association and consumer associations at the provincial level are eligible to initiate a public interest litigation in consumer disputes. An amendment to the Civil Procedure Law in 2017 introduced the new mechanism of public interest prosecution, allowing the procuratorate to prosecute a case relating to food and drug safety if there is no relevant institution or organisation with the power to file public interest claims, or the relevant institution or organisation does not file a claim.

According to the Civil Code, the statute of limitation for a product liability claim is three years. The period of the limitation is calculated from the day when the plaintiff (eg, the consumer or other infringed individuals) knew or should have known the identity of the respondent and that their right had been infringed. In any event, the court will not offer protection to the plaintiff if 20 years have elapsed since the infringement took place. Nevertheless, under special circumstances, the court may decide to extend the period upon the application of the plaintiff.

According to the Civil Procedural Law, a product liability dispute must meet the following prerequisites:

• the plaintiff is a citizen, legal person or any other organisation with a direct interest in the case;
• there is a specific defendant; and
• the plaintiff has made a specific claim supported by facts and reasons.

In addition, the plaintiff has to file the claim before the court that has jurisdiction (see 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought).

To date, there are no mandatory pre-litigation procedures under Chinese law. Pre-trial preservation of evidence, which is an optional pre-action procedure, is explained in 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims.

If any evidence may be lost or subsequently become hard to obtain, a party to the dispute can apply for the court to issue an evidence preservation order, either during the proceedings or before the filing of a litigation under urgent circumstances (the latter is also known as pre-trial preservation of evidence).

Evidentiary preservation measures ordered by the court may include making copies in advance, sealing evidence or taking other actions to preserve evidence, depending on the format and location of the evidence in individual cases. The court may impose a fine or detain anyone who forges or destroys important evidence, or it may adopt a presumption of fact against a party found to have breached the rules.

Unlike common law jurisdictions, there is no general process of document production during civil litigation in Chinese courts. Except where the burden of proof is specifically allocated elsewhere (see 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases), each party bears the evidentiary burden of proving its claims.

However, if a party and its representative find it difficult to obtain a particular piece of evidence due to objective difficulties, that party may apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection. For example, in product quality disputes, if the consumer is unable to obtain a vital inspection report regarding product defects kept by the product manufacturer, the consumer could apply to the court to collect the report from the manufacturer.

In addition, if a party refuses to provide evidence without any proper justification, despite indications that the evidence is in its possession, and the other party bearing the burden of proof for a particular fact claims that the evidence is unfavourable to the party that possesses it, a court may presume that the relevant claim has been established.

To resolve technical issues in a product liability dispute, the court may instruct a qualified institution or person to inspect and test the product in detail upon application by a party or on its own motion. The person responsible for the inspection may be present during the hearing to give testimony on the results of inspection, upon the application of a party or if the court considers it necessary to hear the testimony. The judge hearing the proceedings may pose questions to the expert, and any party may cross-examine the expert. Either party may also introduce other experts to provide professional opinion on the inspection or other technical issues during the hearing. Where permitted by the court, experts may address each other regarding issues arising in the proceedings.

In product liability proceedings, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that:

• the product is defective;
• damage or loss occurred; and
• a causal relationship exists between the defect and the damage suffered.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

To the defendant

In many cases brought by consumers, the plaintiff usually has limited technical knowledge about the product in dispute. Out of consideration for fairness, courts will generally not impose overly stringent evidentiary burdens concerning the product defect and the causal relationship on the plaintiff. As long as the plaintiff can present prima facie evidence that the product may be defective, the court tends to shift the burden of proof to the manufacturer or seller to prove that the product is not defective. For this purpose, the defendant will usually need to prove that the product meets the national and industry standards (if any), does not present any unreasonable danger to a person’s health, and will not damage a person’s property.

Notably, for contractual claims arising from product flaws that do not involve a safety hazard, according to the PCRI, if a consumer discovers such a flaw within six months upon receiving durable goods such as motor vehicles, computers, televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners and washing machines, the respondent shall bear the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the flaw does not exist.

The “presumptive approach”

The same is true in demonstrating the causal relationship between the defect and the damage incurred. Given the difficulty for ordinary consumers to establish an unequivocal causal relationship, the plaintiff is only usually expected to prove the existence of a “connection” between the injury or damage and the defect. When this has been done, the courts usually take a “presumptive approach” and establish the causal relationship when there is a high possibility that the defect is the cause of the injury.

The inspection procedure

In practice, the inspection procedure plays an important role in determining the existence of product defect and causation. A party may apply to a court for an inspection to determine whether a product is defective or the cause of the injury. The inspection will be conducted by inspection institutions with appropriate qualifications or by judicial inspection institutions, which are either appointed based on an agreement between the parties or designated by the court. If necessary, the court may also decide to appoint an inspection institution on its own motion. As mentioned in 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases, the plaintiff or the defendant may also apply to introduce an expert to give an opinion on the inspection opinion.

Courts and Procedures

There are no special courts or procedures for product liability cases. However, if a product liability dispute is relatively simple and the amount in dispute is relatively small, a simplified procedure or small claims procedure may apply. These two types of procedures are more flexible and are concluded more quickly than the normal procedure for civil litigation. In addition, the judgment or ruling of the first instance court in a small claims procedure is final and not subject to appeal.

District Jurisdiction

In a contractual dispute the parties may, by written agreement (subject to the statutory rules on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction), select the court at the place of:

• the domicile of the defendant;
• the signing or performance of the contract;
• the domicile of the plaintiff;
• the location of the subject matter; or
• any other place with an actual connection to the dispute.

In the absence of a prior agreement of the parties, the court at the place of the domicile of the defendant or where the contract is performed will have jurisdiction over the case.

Product liability claims based on tort are under the jurisdiction of the court at the place where the tortious act occurred or the domicile of the defendant. In addition, courts in places where the disputed products are manufactured or sold also have jurisdiction over such claims. Accordingly, the infringed party may file the lawsuit to any of the competent courts.

Specifically, the place where the tort occurred includes the place where the tortious conduct was committed and the place where the consequences of the tortious conduct occurred. If the manufacturer and seller are domiciled in China, the Chinese courts will, without a doubt, have jurisdiction over the proceedings. If the manufacturing and selling take place outside China, the manufacturer and seller may still fall under the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts if the damage occurs within China.

Hierarchical Jurisdiction

Depending on the amount in dispute, a civil dispute may be heard by courts at different levels including district courts, intermediate courts or high courts. The precise threshold for each level of court to hear a case varies by region. In practice, since the underlying amount in product liability cases is relatively small, these cases are usually heard by the district courts.

The “People’s Juror”

Since China has a legal system based on civil law, there is no trial by jury in Chinese courts. However, there is a “People’s Juror” system, by which a non-judge citizen can serve on the hearing panel in a case governed by normal procedure, with the same power as a judge. The juror can participate in fact-finding, the application of law and the decision-making process.

The rules for appeal in product liability disputes are the same as in other civil proceedings governed by the Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretations. The judgments or certain rulings made by the court of first instance may be appealed on grounds including fault in fact-finding, incorrect application of laws, and serious procedural violations.

Once the court of first instance delivers the ruling or judgment, either party may file an appeal with the People’s Court at the higher level within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, or ten days from the date of service of the ruling. The appellate court may decide to uphold, withdraw or revise the original ruling or judgment, or remand the case back to the lower court.

Under Chinese law, the defendant in a product liability dispute can raise procedural and substantive defences.

In contractual claims arising from product flaws that do not pose a safety hazard, the seller may argue that the buyer (or consumer) was explicitly informed of such a flaw and therefore the seller should be exempt from liability for breach of contract.

In tort claims over damage caused by product defects, product quality laws and regulations outline the following three statutory defences under which a manufacturer may avoid liability:

• the products have not been put into circulation;
• the defects did not exist when the products were put into circulation (in other words, the manufacturer can demonstrate that the defect was caused by the victim); and
• the scientific and technological standards at the time the product was put into circulation did not enable the manufacturer to detect the defect in the product.

Additionally, as outlined in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of proving three elements in a product liability claim (ie, defects, injuries or damage, and a causal relationship between these). A defendant may also avoid liability by successfully challenging any of these three elements. In legal practice, defendants in general tend to challenge the existence of “defects” and a “causal relationship”.

Regulatory requirements, especially national standards, play an important role in deciding product liability cases. As stated in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, “defect” is one of the three elements necessary for the establishment of product liability. Compliance with national standards is one of the criteria for courts to determine whether a product is defective.

Under the Product Quality Law, where a product is governed by national or industry standards for the protection of health, personal safety or the safety of property, the term “defect” includes non-compliance with those standards. Similarly, sector-specific regulations also refer to non-compliance with national standards as one of the criteria for defects. For example, the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products provide that products that do not meet the national or industry standards on personal and property safety are deemed to be defective.

That said, regulatory compliance is only a bottom line in product liability disputes. Products that meet the national or industry standards or other administrative requirements are not automatically considered “free from defects”. They also have to meet a reasonable person’s expectations regarding safety (see 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law for further details).

In China, a court fee is calculated in proportion to the amount of the claim and must be pre-paid to the court in all cases (including product liability cases) before the hearing by the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff applies for a postponement, reduction or exemption of the court fee and the court permits this.

The court will decide the allocation of the court fee between the parties in the final judgment, as well as other fees such as expert costs and inspection fees. Such fees are usually allocated to the losing party. As for attorneys’ fees, the court usually considers whether the losing party should bear such costs based on the specific facts of the case, taking into account whether the parties had already reached an agreement on this matter in their contract and whether the attorneys’ fees could be classified as a reasonable expense.

Litigation Funding

No statutory litigation funding system is currently established in China. It is also difficult to receive legal aid in product liability cases. In practice, however, specific state-supported funding is available for public interest litigation (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims) for parties who cannot afford the cost of litigation.

By law, a court can, after investigating the situation, decide to exempt, reduce or postpone the court fee upon application if it finds that a party is financially disadvantaged and has genuine difficulties in paying court fees. Eligible applicants include disabled persons without a steady source of income, persons on minimal welfare benefits, and persons affected by natural disasters or other types of force majeure. In particular, victims of product quality accidents are allowed to apply for postponement of court fees.

Contingency Fees

In civil cases involving property, which covers most product liability disputes, a contingency fee can be agreed upon between attorneys and clients.

To date, China’s legal system has not provided for class actions as they exist, for example, in the USA. However, China does allow public interest litigations and representative litigations when a product quality dispute affects multiple individuals (see 2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims).

In practice, many public interest litigations in China are filed by procuratorates. As an example, a procuratorate in Guangdong province commenced litigation against two individuals for selling pork that did not meet the food safety regulatory requirements and impairing public health. The People’s Court supported all the claims of the procuratorate and ordered the two defendants to remedy the damage caused by their products (by making payments to the State Treasury) and apologise to the public in the newspaper (see Case (2019) Yue Min Zhong No 379 decided by the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province). More recently, China is also exploring ways to encourage consumer associations to initiate public interest litigation, with local procuratorates providing the necessary support during the proceedings (see 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims).

There have been many published decisions concerning product liability in China recently. The cases discussed below – about public interest litigation, punitive damages, food safety and product defects – are significant to judicial practice in interpreting key concepts and supporting new trends in public interest litigation.

Product Liability After Lapse of Warranty Term

On 29 September 2024, the SPC released a batch of typical cases relating to product quality. One of these model cases concerns product liability for defects after the lapse of the warranty term.

In (2023) Ji 05 Min Zhong No 4841 (decided by Xingtai Intermediate People’s Court, Hebei), the plaintiff purchased a harvester from the respondent, which was covered by a 12-month warranty. After 16 months of use, an electrical line failure of the machine led to a fire accident, causing property losses. The plaintiff then claimed compensation against the respondent for the product defect. The court found that the electrical line failure constituted an unreasonable danger to physical and property safety, and held that the business operator shall not be exempt from its product liability for product defects even after the lapse of the warranty term. Therefore, the court supported the plaintiff’s compensation claim.

Punitive Damages Imposed on Shareholder Deregistering Company in Bad Faith

The SPC published “Typical Cases of Punitive Damages Related to Food Safety” on 21 August 2024, one of which involves a shareholder who intended to evade the punitive damages by deregistering his company.

According to the case brief, the plaintiff purchased 20 batches of liquor from the online store of respondent’s company. However, it was later discovered that the information on manufacturer and production license was all fabricated. The plaintiff claimed punitive damages against the company, and held another respondent, the sole shareholder to the company, jointly liable for the compensation. During the proceedings, the shareholder deregistered his company, with an intent to evade the potential liability. The court determined that the fabrication of false product labels amounted to production of food not compliant with food safety standards, and that in accordance with the Food Safety Law and the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China, the respondent being the sole shareholder shall still assume the liability of punitive damages.

Interpretation of “Unreasonable Danger”

Since the establishment of the “People’s Court Case Database”, several product liability cases have been selected as “Case for Reference”, indicating their referential value in adjudication. One of these selected cases concerns the interpretation of “unreasonable danger” under the concept of product defect.

In (2022) Lu 0113 Min Chu No 5595 (decided by Changqing District Court, Jinan), the plaintiff’s wife purchased a multifunctional steamer from the respondent who claimed that the equipment had therapeutic effects. Since the plaintiff was paralysed, his wife held him over the equipment for half an hour before finding that the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff then claimed compensation and punitive damages against the respondent.

Despite the seller having submitted inspection reports to prove the product quality and arguing that the reason for such injury was that the plaintiff was paralysed, the court held that the determination of “unreasonable danger” shall take into account whether the product safety can be reasonably expected during the course of normal use. Therefore, the equipment shall guarantee that it was safe when being used by people other than those explicitly prohibited from use. However, the court found that the product did not explicitly exclude paralysed people from use, and the seller was at fault for not notifying the customer in advance and thus shall bear the compensation. The court did not find any fraud and rejected the claim for punitive damages.

Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Procuratorate

Since the Civil Procedure Law granted procuratorates the power of commencing public interest litigation, procuratorates have developed the model of “Criminal Sanction Plus Public Interest litigation” in product liability disputes to better protect the interests of consumers. On 15 March 2024, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released “Typical Cases of Public Interest Litigation Filed by Procuratorates on Consumer Rights Protection”.

One of the typical cases where the procuratorate pursued public interest litigation in addition to criminal procedures involved the sale of baby products. During the investigation on the respondent’s selling of baby feeding bottles that infringed trade mark rights, the local procuratorate in Shenzhen also found evidence of violations affecting the interests of consumers and infants. Further inspection demonstrated that the infringing products were mainly made of polycarbonate, thus failing to meet the relevant national standard on infant products and harming the health of infants. The local procuratorate then commenced public interest litigation in the Shenzhen local court on grounds of the respondent selling unqualified counterfeit infant products that harmed public interest. The court ultimately ordered the defendant to pay punitive damages and issue a public apology on the state media.

Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Consumer Association and Supported by the Procuratorate

On 15 March 2025, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, together with China Consumers Association, released a collection of public interest litigation cases aimed at promoting the protection of consumer interests.

One of these model cases concerns civil public interest litigation initiated by the Shanghai Consumer Council. According to the case brief, the consumer council brought proceedings against a seller of electronic cigarettes who violated the mandatory standards by adding additional flavours to the products, thereby increasing the risks of addiction and harm to human health. Notably, under a collaborative framework, the Shanghai Procuratorate supported the Shanghai Consumer Council in collecting evidence and filing a lawsuit, aiming to empower the consumer council in bringing public interest litigation. Ultimately, the court successfully concluded mediation, with the respondent making a public apology and paying public interest damages equal to its illegal gains to a specialised fund for consumer public interest litigation.

In addition to trends reflected in the typical cases discussed in 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims, recent legislative updates on product liability and product safety policy are as follows.

Clarification on Scope of Compensable Property Damage Covered by Product Liability Claims

The SPC released a new judicial interpretation on the tort liability section of China’s Civil Code on 25 September 2024, which became effective on 27 September 2024. Importantly, this interpretation clarifies that the “property damage” claimed by the buyer in product liability tort claims includes not just damage caused to “other property” but also damage caused to the “defective product itself”.

This understanding, which aligns with the legal spirit of the new Civil Code, takes precedence over the old Product Quality Law, under which property damage caused by product defects in tort claims only covers properties “other than” the defective product itself. Originally, consumers were required to file a contractual claim to recover damages for the defective product itself, and a separate tort claim to seek compensation for damage to other properties. By adopting the new interpretation, legislators intend to simplify the filing of lawsuits by consumers and save judicial resources. Under the new approach, for disputes involving product defects, consumers may simply file one tort claim to cover damages to both the defective product itself and any other property.

Elaboration of Punitive Damages Rules in Food and Drugs Cases

On 22 August 2024, the SPC officially adopted an interpretation on punitive damages in foods and drugs disputes. Key highlights include the following.

• Courts shall support punitive damages claims by ordinary consumers purchasing food for personal or family needs. The amount of punitive damages is calculated based on the actual payment made for the product.
• Non-professional purchasing agents (daigou) do not bear the punitive damages liability. Professional purchasing agents who unintentionally sell substandard products may seek compensation from the manufacturer after paying punitive damages to the buyer.
• If the consumer brings a punitive damages claim based on violations of the Food Safety Law or Pharmaceutical Safety Law but the court finds no such violation other than consumer fraud, the consumer may change their claim to seek punitive damages for consumer fraud, as per the PCRI.
• For buyers who knowingly purchase substandard food or repeatedly purchase the same product within a short period, courts may only support their punitive damages claim on the basis of the quantities necessary for household use. Moreover, business operators shall bear the burden of proof if they argue that the buyer knowingly purchased the substandard food.
• Courts shall reject punitive damages claims by buyers who fabricate facts and use threats of tip-offs or lawsuits. Such buyers shall also be held liable for acting in bad faith. 
• Further, the new interpretation also provides guidelines on punitive damages claims resulting from errors in product labels or manuals. For example, courts may dismiss punitive damages claims due to clerical errors that do not cause misleading effects.

Introduction of New Rules to Further Protect Consumer Rights

On 15 March 2024, China introduced the Implementation Rules on the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, which came into force on 1 July 2024. The new rules have elaborated on the following aspects concerning product quality. It is also important to note that the SAMR proposed amendments, which are yet to be finalised, to the statutory rules on repair, replacement and return policies of phones, computers, household audio-visual products and automotive products in order to reflect the new changes in the implementation rules.

Duty to ensure product safety

The new rules require business operators to ensure the safety of the products or services provided, including those offered free of charge in the form of prizes, gifts or samples. Moreover, business operators shall notify consumers if such free products or services have flaws which however do not contravene mandatory rules nor affect their normal performance.

Recall of defective products

The new rules provide in general the requirements for recalling defective products. Consumers are encouraged to notify the business operators or authorities if they find potential defects in the products or services, and business operators are required to react promptly when discovering potential defects that could harm physical or property safety. Meanwhile, business operators that sell, lease, or repair the products, suppliers of components and those entrusted with manufacturing are obligated to co-operate with product recalls.

Calculation of warranty period

Under the new rules, the warranty period for return, replacement and repair as agreed between the business operator and the consumer shall not be shorter than any statutory rules. In general, the warranty period shall start from the date when the product is delivered to the consumer or the service is completed. Where the business operator has performed its replacement duty, the warranty period shall be reset, starting from the date of the completion of the replacement.

Expansion of the mandate of consumer associations

In addition to responsibilities set out in the PCRI, the new rules accord additional mandate to consumer associations. Consumer associations may hold talks with the business operators or industrial organisations on consumer protection issues. They are also mandated to carry out investigations on infringement of consumer rights and require the business operators to submit statements and evidentiary materials.

Determination of consumer fraud

While the new rules reiterate the compensation for consumer fraud, it is also clarified that such fraud does not cover the circumstance in which the flaws in markings or labels, manuals or promotional materials will not impact the quality of products or services nor mislead consumers. Further, the new rules stipulate that punitive damages for fraud do not apply to those intending to obtain compensation through fraudulent acts. In this respect, administrative and criminal penalties (if any) shall be imposed on such bad-faith entities.

Ongoing Amendment to the Product Quality Law

On 18 October 2023, the SAMR released a revised version of the Product Quality Law for public comments. To date, the draft amendment has yet to be officially promulgated. Major features of this new draft are illustrated as follows.

• The term “business operator” is specifically defined in the new draft, covering, among others, manufacturers, sellers, product storage and transport operators, online sellers, e-commerce platforms, operators of centralised trading markets, counter renters, organisers of trade fairs, and service industry operators. Accordingly, a separate chapter is dedicated to setting out product quality responsibilities of business operators other than manufacturers and sellers.
• The new draft aims to implement more stringent supervision of the quality of “special consumer products” which include products for children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, the elderly and the disabled. Such products are subject to stricter standards, shall pass safety assessment and third-party inspection before being put into circulation and shall implement special labels.
• A new chapter of the draft targets the measures for quality innovation and the building of quality infrastructure. For example, the new draft intends to introduce the regulatory sandbox so as to encourage innovation while mitigating risks and preserving consumer safety.
• The new draft proposes to unify the concept of “defect”, which is defined as “products having unreasonable danger compromising physical safety and/or security of other properties”.
• The new draft also plans to establish the product quality credit system under which product quality credit information shall be disclosed to the public in the national enterprise credit system. Entities severely violating product quality regulations shall be included in the list of dishonest enterprises committing grave illegalities, which are subject to further restrictions on access to government procurement and obtaining government support.

The general tendency in product liability, as outlined in 3.1 Trends in Product Liability and Product Safety Policy, is to extend the level of protection to consumers while maintaining a more balanced approach in protecting the legitimate interests of business operators. Based on the latest legislative and judicial practice discussed in the previous section, future policy directions in product liability and product safety are expected to focus on the following aspects:

• unifying the standards for determining product defects;
• increasing the use and function of punitive damages in product liability cases while ensuring that bad-faith consumers do not profit from punitive damages claims;
• enhancing collaboration between procuratorates and consumer associations in public interest litigation, and exploring approaches for effectively using public interest compensation in such cases;
• expanding the use and application of mental distress damages in product liability cases; and
• strengthening the oversight of high-risk product categories, including food, drugs and infant products.