共享经济预付押金模式的法律挑战与应对

Legal Chanlleges and Responses to Deposits in Sharing Economy

共享经济中消费者预付押金模式将一物一押变革为一人一押,资金沉淀引发安全隐患,押金保护诉求对传统法律制度提出挑战。然而在私法层面,押金作为一般债权不能在出租人破产时被取回,押金返还须遵从既有法律框架;在公法层面,押金不具有金融属性,类金融规制中设立专户、专款专用措施有效性不足,应予以改进。面对市场创新,法律规制目标应设定为交易安全与鼓励创新的平衡。基于成本收益分析,应对动产租赁押金适用小额豁免机制,不必建立第三方独立存管制度,而应鼓励采取其他信用方式完善市场自我规制,借助技术手段对资金进行预授权冻结,依靠合同自治明确押金利息归属问题,并通过提起消费者公益诉讼解决押金保管与返还争议,实现消费者权益的司法保障。

The new type of internet lease deposit model in sharing economy has changed the legal nature of deposits from“one property and one pledge”to“one person and one pledge”.The deposits create a huge money pool,causing security problems.However,it is problematic if the protection mechanisms for deposits go far beyond the framework of traditional legal rules.In terms of private law,deposits are ordinary rights.Thus the issue of deposit refund and bankruptcy protection can only be dealt with under the existing legal system.In terms of public law,deposits do not have financial attributes.The quasi-financial regulations including establishment of special accounts and special use of funds are not effective and should be improved.Facing market innovation,the goal of regulation should be pursuing a balance between security and creativity.Based on cost-benefit analysis,the de minimis exemption is applicable to movable property lease deposits.It is not necessary to establish an independent third-party depository mechanism.Instead,other credit-based methods should be encouraged to facilitate the market’s self-regulation.Technical means including funds frozen through pre-authorization may also be used to provide pledge.With regard to the issue of interest on deposits,contract autonomy is preferable.Through public interest litigation and judicial protection,the issue of deposit custody and return would be resolved.