Mask Mayhem: Helen’s Beauty Binge Turns Bitter
Helen, a radiant beauty enthusiast with a penchant for pampering her epidermis, found herself once again magnetically drawn toward her favorite cosmetic trove. Remembering that her mask arsenal was dwindling, she sauntered in, only to be greeted by the ever-smiling shopkeeper, who seemed to have a ‘Helen radar’ for her habitual visits. “Look who’s back! We’ve got some fresh potions and lotions for you,” chimed the shopkeeper. Helen, playing it cool, replied, “Just here to window-shop—though these windows always end up in my shopping bag!”
Homebound, Helen was all giggles, her shopping spree successful, her heart as light as her wallet. Come dusk, she unwrapped a fresh mask, laying it on her face with the hope of emerging like a butterfly from a chrysalis. Instead, half an hour later, she began to itch like she’d offended a coven of nettles. Swollen and in pain, her skin threw a full-blown tantrum, and Helen, in a dramatic plot twist, fainted.
Post-recovery, with her doctor’s words “anaphylactic shock” echoing like a bad movie line, Helen marched back to the cosmetic store, masks in tow. “Your face-torture device cost me 5,000 Yuan in medical drama!” she exclaimed. The shopkeeper, unfazed, responded, “Alas, our products meet national standards. It’s not us, it’s you. If there’s a quality tango, it’s the manufacturer who leads.”
Law In A Minute
Although the masks Helen purchased met the national standards, she was not made aware of the potential safety risks as a consumer not engaged in business transactions. Her subsequent anaphylactic shock after using the product according to instructions suggests that the risks associated with the product were unreasonably high, qualifying it as “defective.”
Moreover, even if Helen’s allergic reaction was due to her unique sensitivities, the manufacturer is still obligated to provide adequate warnings and instructions on the packaging. Failure to do so also renders the product “defective.”
Under China’s Product Quality Law, Helen, having incurred personal and financial harm due to the product’s defectiveness, is entitled to seek compensation for her losses either from the cosmetics shop or directly from the manufacturer. Consequently, the cosmetics shop may be held responsible for Helen’s losses.
Legal Basis
Product Quality Law
Article 46
Defects mentioned in the law are referred to the irrational dangers existing in the products that threaten the safety of person or properties or products that do not conform to the standards set by the State or the specific trade if there is any.
Consumer Protection Law
Article 40.2
A consumer or other injured party whose person or property is harmed due to a commodity defect may demand compensation from the seller or may also demand compensation from the producer. Where the responsibility lies with the producer, the seller, after settling compensation, shall have the right to recover from the producer. Where the responsibility lies with the seller, the producer, after settling compensation, shall have the right to recover such compensation from the seller.