网络平台消费性格式管辖规则的实证反思与规范配置——基于901件司法裁判

Empirical Reflection and Normative Allocation of Consumption Format Jurisdiction Rules of Network Platform——Based on the Judicial Decisions of 901 Cases

网络平台消费性格式管辖条款存在信息和内容双重特质及风险,新《民诉法解释》第20条及第31条确立了网络消费者管辖利益保护的立法价值取向,但对网络平台消费性格式管辖条款的规制仍不够,造成司法实践中的裁判分歧。采用实证研究方法,总结我国法院对网络平台消费性格式管辖条款的信息规制、内容评价的各式分歧,提炼出其中的共性问题,以此作为对消费性格式管辖规则的补充和完善;采用规范研究与比较研究方法,探究我国网络平台消费性格式管辖规则的规范配置。基于网络消费者的有限理性,应对其采取法律除偏的特殊信息规制;在内容设定上,确立网络消费者源地管辖规则,作为半强制性法律规范,同时给予消费者选择管辖法院的自由,以及事后双方当事人约定由消费者住所地以外法院管辖的自由。

There are dual characteristics and risks of information and content in the format jurisdiction clause of network platform.Article 20 and Article 31 of the new Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law establish the legislative value orientation of the protection of the jurisdictional interests of online consumers, but they have insufficiency in regulating the consumption format jurisdiction clauses of online platforms, resulting in the judgment differences in the judicial practice.Using empirical research methods, the author summarizes various differences of Chinese courts in the information regulation and content evaluation of consumption format jurisdiction clauses of online platforms, extract the common problems and tries to draw on them to supplement and improve the consumption format jurisdiction rules.By means of normative research and comparative research, the author explores the normative configuration of consumption format jurisdiction rules for Chinese online platforms.Based on the limited rationality of Internet consumers, we should adopt special information regulation with the help of “law unbiased” measures.In terms of content setting, we should establish the source address jurisdiction rules of network consumers as a semi-mandatory legal norm and give consumers the freedom to choose the jurisdiction court outside the consumer’s domicile afterwards.