A Beijing court has ruled against an individual for defaming the online retailer EAST BUY, ordering a public apology and financial damages. The Beijing Pinggu District People's Court issued a first-instance verdict in a dispute between East Buy (the operating entity of EAST BUY) and a defendant identified as Chen, who was found to have committed reputation infringement. The court mandated that Chen delete all infringing content, post an apology in a prominent position on the relevant platforms for at least 15 days, and pay 20,000 yuan to cover losses and reasonable expenses incurred by the company.

In March 2026, Chen placed four separate orders for EAST BUY's private-label fried chicken thighs. After receiving the goods, Chen claimed to have discovered live maggots within ten minutes of opening the packaging and subsequently posted a video on a short-video platform on March 31, showing insects crawling inside the packaging layer, with the caption "Disgusting enough to make me vomit." That same evening, additional posts on another platform described "honey-flavored maggots" and demanded "unscrupulous merchants must be severely punished," with Chen insisting in comment replies that the maggots "obviously grew from eating the chicken meat" and had "revived from a frozen, suspended state."

On April 1st, EAST BUY released a production diary video to clarify the situation, explaining that its products undergo high-temperature cooking and sealed flash-freezing, making it impossible for maggots to survive at -18°C. Following the clarification, Chen's initial video was removed, but Chen promptly released a new video stating an unwillingness to back down. The court determined that Chen's actions showed clear subjective fault, leading to a diminished social evaluation of EAST BUY and constituting infringement.

In this case, the defendant had a minimal online following—just 149 followers on one platform and 27 on another—yet a single video racked up over 340,000 views. This illustrates that the harm of corporate-related rumors depends not on the size of the account, but on whether they manage to exploit the public's most fragile sense of trust. This is not an isolated incident for EAST BUY. A user known as "Purple Fairy" previously spread false claims that the company charged government "publicity fees," leading to a public apology after legal action. Another user, "Storyteller Earthman," mischaracterized government subsidies as "promotion fees" and fabricated a story about EAST BUY making 73.56 million yuan from an equity transaction; that case ended with a court award of 201,000 yuan, and the defendant faced enforcement for failing to apologize. Additionally, a user called "East Sister" was ordered to pay 36,000 yuan for falsely claiming receipt of a "seven-figure publicity fee," while "Stock Wolf Head" was ordered to pay 80,000 yuan for fabricating market rumors.

From the 201,000-yuan judgment to the 20,000-yuan one, and from high-profile influencers to accounts with only a hundred followers, the judicial message remains consistent: regardless of scale, the law is systematically closing the cost gap on tactics that cherry-pick corporate information, wrap it in emotional packaging, and seek attention from top-tier traffic. EAST BUY's approach offers a template in this regard—choosing not just to issue statement-based rebuttals, but to form a closed loop of "official clarification video plus civil litigation plus enforcement announcement," ensuring that rumor-mongers face multiple consequences including post deletion, apologies, compensation, and enforcement actions. This aligns with the "Clear and Bright: Optimizing the Business Environment on the Internet" special campaign launched by the Cyberspace Administration of China in May 2026, which explicitly lists "creating negative publicity around key corporate events such as financial result announcements or product launches" as a priority for rectification. The Private Economy Promotion Law also stipulates that the internet shall not be used to insult or defame private economic organizations.

Similar rulings emerging across the country during the same period collectively reinforce a single point: cyberspace is not beyond the rule of law. Criticism must be supported by evidence, and oversight must not be confused with defamation. For self-media operators and individual users alike, enjoying the benefits of the internet comes with an equal obligation to provide proof and maintain boundaries of conduct.