In recent years, some online self-media outlets have used the pretext of “exposing fraud,” “product reviews,” and “consumer advocacy” to attract traffic by exaggerating or even fabricating facts, thereby attacking well-known companies and giving rise to the so-called “online trolls” phenomenon. Such behavior not only disrupts the online environment but also undermines normal market order. Not long ago, the Supreme People’s Court released a landmark case. In the case, four defendants were found by the court to have committed commercial defamation for maliciously slandering the well-known enterprise Pang Donglai and its founder, and were ordered to pay a total of 2.6 million yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses. Pang Donglai is a well-known supermarket chain originating in Xuchang, Henan. In recent years, it has grown rapidly thanks to its excellent service and reputation. With over 10,000 employees and annual revenue exceeding 20 billion yuan, it is deeply loved by consumers. However, such a company has frequently become the target of online attacks, drawing widespread public attention. In March 2025, a certain Mr. Chai, who identified himself as a “jade blogger,” claimed during a live stream that Pang Donglai’s jade products were of “poor quality and overpriced,” with profit margins reaching as high as a hundred times the cost. These claims quickly spread online, sparking widespread discussion. Subsequently, he continued to post related content on short-video platforms, repeatedly reinforcing negative assessments of the company, alleging illegal activities, and even inciting consumers to file mass returns and reports. In response to these allegations, Pang Donglai Company issued a public statement detailing the sourcing channels, quality inspection processes, and pricing methods for its jade products in an attempt to set the record straight. However, the blogger in question continued to post controversial remarks and attract attention through exaggerated claims. Subsequently, Pang Donglai and its founder filed a lawsuit with the Xuchang Intermediate People’s Court, suing the relevant individuals and affiliated companies. The court’s investigation revealed that the blogger actually had a financial interest in the relevant jewelry company, and that his so-called “anti-counterfeiting” activities were clearly intended for commercial promotion—essentially using online traffic to generate revenue for himself and his affiliated businesses. Ultimately, the court ruled that his actions constituted commercial defamation, ordering the defendant to cease the infringement, remove the relevant videos, issue a public apology, and compensate for economic losses. Such cases are not isolated incidents. In recent years, as Pang Donglai’s profile has risen, related online infringement cases have increased significantly, with the vast majority involving online rumors and malicious reviews. Some bloggers, under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” publish information that mixes truth with falsehoods, using partial facts to mislead the public and making it difficult for ordinary netizens to discern the truth. The judicial authorities have concluded that the behavior of “online trolls” typically shares several common characteristics. First, the information they disseminate is often difficult to verify, frequently mixing factual details with false content to mislead the public through emotional rhetoric. Second, they are driven by traffic; they gain attention by attacking companies and then convert that traffic into commercial revenue, sometimes even collaborating with “online trolls” to amplify their impact. Third, the cost of infringing on rights is relatively low, while the process of companies asserting their rights is complex; even if they ultimately win the case, their brand reputation has already been damaged. For example, in another case, a blogger with a large following claimed that products from Pang Donglai had quality issues, causing public opinion to escalate rapidly. The company was forced to invest significant resources in testing, legal action, and issuing clarifications, yet it remained difficult to completely eliminate the negative impact. Data shows that such incidents have led to a significant short-term decline in sales for companies and resulted in substantial damage to their business reputation. Court officials point out that the challenges in such cases lie in the difficulty of gathering evidence, the rapid speed of information dissemination, and legal issues spanning multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, given the wide reach of online information, once rumors spread, it is difficult to completely eliminate their impact even if they are later proven false. To address this situation, judicial authorities have proposed that “provisional measures” may be adopted in urgent cases, requiring infringers to immediately cease disseminating the relevant content to minimize harm. At the same time, platforms should strengthen content moderation, and companies should proactively preserve evidence and protect their rights in accordance with the law, rather than passively accepting losses. Experts believe that addressing the issue of "online scammers" requires a concerted effort from all parties. Online platforms should strengthen their management practices to promptly identify and address malicious content; businesses should enhance their legal awareness and be proactive in protecting their own rights and interests; and relevant authorities should also step up guidance and oversight to collectively foster a healthy online environment.