Recently, a news that "farmers selling bowls were reported to have three no products, and the court sentenced them to a refund of 50000" triggered a heated debate. An online store in Chongqing called "maoma local specialty business department" was asked by the buyer to refund all the payment and compensate 10 times the transaction amount, with a total amount of nearly 50000 yuan, for selling 150 pieces of self-made cooked meat without food labels online. The court of first instance and second instance both made judgments in support of the plaintiff's claims. The shop opened online, and the disaster came from heaven. The "mother Mao" family was obviously very wronged about the controversial order and the court judgment. From their point of view, the online store has handled the business license and relevant legal procedures, there is no problem with food safety, and there are food labels, but the dishes, steamed meat and white meat sold this time are new products, and they have not been labeled in time. The family worked hard to produce. Originally, they wanted to use the channel dividend of the network platform to earn income and get rich by technology. Unexpectedly, they not only got into a lawsuit, but also compensated tens of thousands of yuan. In addition to the grievances, the "Mao mother" family may also feel very angry. Selling local specialties and homemade dishes with low unit price, they were fined tens of thousands of yuan this time. They felt that they were "routine" by the buyer. According to the information they provided, Mr. Shao, the buyer, had bought the same product with another account before the controversial order. At that time, he had found that the food had no label defects, and later bought 150 orders at one time, which naturally reminded the seller of the so-called "professional counterfeiter". Although the seller felt aggrieved and resentful, the judgments of the court of first instance and second instance were legally justified. Article 68 of the food safety law of the people's Republic of China clearly states that "when selling bulk food, food operators shall indicate the name, production date or production batch number, shelf life, name, address, contact information and other contents of the food on the containers and outer packages of bulk food"; Article 148 also stipulates that "if a consumer suffers damage due to food that does not meet the food safety standards, he may claim compensation from the business operator". It was in accordance with the express provisions of the law that the court made the above sentence. As for whether the buyer is a "professional dummy", it does not affect its legal rights protection as a consumer. It seems that the common feelings of the public are easily contradicted here. Although there are disputes in the past rights protection events involving professional counterfeiters, most people understand and agree with these behaviors that actively crack down on fake and shoddy products circulating in the market through legal channels and purify the market consumption environment. In this case, many people sympathized with the seller. Of course, we do not want to blame the buyers who protect their rights according to law and obtain the support of the court of first instance and second instance, but to point out that there are some details worthy of consideration in addition to the judgment made by the court according to law. For example, unlike those who deliberately make profits by making fake selling prices, the defendant's family did not intentionally make profits by making and selling "products that do not meet food safety". In fact, people's sympathy is to understand these new entrants to the Internet and e-commerce industry. Many of them were originally farmers and were traffickers and pawns, leading cars and selling pulp. With the sinking of the Internet society, they can also enter the network society and find a job to make a living, but they may not be familiar with and understand the laws and regulations that must be followed to make a living from the new business form. With the development of platform economy, the vast rural sinking market is regarded as a dividend of scale. It is the continuous participation of these new users that makes new businesses, new models and new formats such as e-commerce, live delivery and short video e-commerce flourish. However, compared with the indigenous people in the Internet society, these small businesses from rural areas have relatively low education level and lack of legal knowledge and literacy. After they are incorporated into the network platform, who will give them legal education, let them know, understand, abide by and fear the law, and become qualified participants in the network society and digital economy. This may not be just a legal issue, It is also an economic and social issue involving a wide range of issues. (Xinhua News Agency)