Q&A with an Officer from the Law Enforcement and Inspection Bureau of China’s State Administration for Market Regulation on the Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports

Original Chinese version published by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation:

https://www.samr.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/xwxcs/art/2026/art_6e109bc7210845229591811f7a00c601.html

Translation of the full text of “Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports by Market Supervision and Administration“(Promulgated by Order No. 121 of the State Administration for Market Regulation on December 30, 2025;
Effective as of April 15, 2026)
: https://neoasien.com/asia-market-en/china-regulation-complaints-and-reports-from-consumers-measures-for-the-handling-of-complaints-and-reports-chinas-state-administration-for-market-regulation/


The following is an English translation for reference purposes. This Q&A can help us to understand the background and the logic. Policy update summarizes key regulatory developments relevant to companies operating in or entering the Chinese market.

For further insights on consumer goods, luxury, and fragrance markets in Europe and Asia, please contact Neo Asien.


1. What is the background for revising the Measures (“the Measures”)?

Answer: The Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports by Market Supervision and Administration took effect on January 1, 2020 in its interim version and has since played an important role in integrating market supervision functions (“Five-in-One” institutional reform), improving the quality and effectiveness of complaint and report handling, and safeguarding consumer rights. However, with changes in the market and regulatory practice, a comprehensive revision has become necessary.

First, it was necessary to implement requirements of higher-ranking law. The Implementation Regulations of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests came into effect on July 1, 2024 and introduced new provisions on complaint and report handling procedures. The Measures needed to fully reflect and detail those legislative requirements to ensure coherence within the legal framework.

Second, it was necessary to respond to practical needs. Over five years of implementation, new regulatory challenges have emerged — for example, a significant increase in the volume of complaints in e-commerce where platform responsibilities are not always effectively applied, requiring better jurisdictional rules. With rapid market expansion, complaint and report volumes continue to rise, making it important to optimize procedures, enhance processing efficiency, and promote diversified resolution of consumer disputes and reduction of issues at the source.

Third, it was important to protect the rights of all parties. The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China emphasizes smooth and standardized channels for expressing public demands, coordinating interests, and protecting rights. In recent years, some parties have misused the complaint and report system to harass business operators, harming the market environment and order of market supervision, and crowding out legitimate consumer rights channels. It is therefore necessary to better balance consumers’ lawful rights protection with business operators’ ability to operate in accordance with the law, thereby promoting healthy and regulated development of the consumer market.


2. Could you explain the revision process of the Measures?

Answer: Because complaint and report handling affects a broad audience and receives wide public attention, the revision of the Measures was guided by Party leadership, implemented with Xi Jinping’s thought on the rule of law in mind, and upheld the “regulation for the people” philosophy. The revision process also adhered to principles of law-based drafting, ensuring alignment with higher laws and coherence with other regulations; it was conducted through open-door legislative drafting, soliciting opinions from various parties to address public concerns and meet grassroots needs.

Specifically, since early 2025, we have convened provincial and municipal consultations, expert seminars, and legislative research meetings, conducted field research, and heard from experts, consumer groups, business operators, and frontline staff. Written comments were solicited from relevant State Council departments and provincial market supervision authorities. From August 6 to September 5, 2025, the draft was also made available for public comment. After comprehensive review and incorporation of feedback, the SAMR Bureau Meeting approved the Measures on December 22, 2025, and they were recently promulgated.


3. What optimizations were made regarding jurisdiction for complaints?

Answer: Jurisdiction is a key concern for many stakeholders — it is the first step in filing and handling complaints and affects how resources are allocated and responsibilities are implemented. The existing jurisdiction rules largely aligned with civil procedural principles and have operated for many years. Rather than making wholesale changes, the revision focuses on addressing prominent practical issues, especially improving jurisdiction rules for platform-based operators (e.g., online stores, livestream sellers).

The previous interim Measures provided that complaints against platform-based operators could be handled by the market supervision authority at the operator’s actual place of business or the platform operator’s domicile. In practice, e-commerce complaints represent more than half of all complaints, and many online sellers lack accurate identity information; platforms sometimes fail to verify or assist in dispute resolution, and ambiguity around “actual place of business” has made jurisdiction difficult to determine.

Under the revised Measures, complaints against platform-based operators may be handled by the market supervision authority at the location publicly disclosed by the platform or at the registered address of the platform operator. If the platform does not legally disclose the operator’s address or the disclosed address cannot be contacted, the authority at the platform operator’s domicile shall handle the complaint.

Replacing “actual place of business” with “publicly disclosed address” provides clearer standards for consumers and regulatory authorities, helping to define jurisdiction and resolve disputes more effectively. If a platform cannot provide the real name, address, and valid contact details of operators to consumers, it must bear civil liability under the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests; failing to verify and regularly update operator identities may also trigger administrative liability under the E-commerce Law.


4. The Measures have new requirements on complaint materials. What was the rationale behind these changes?

Answer: Complaint materials are essential for complaint handling because they are the basis for organizing mediation between parties. Clear identification of the parties, verification of the consumer relationship, and description of the dispute facts are necessary to ensure effective handling.

Accordingly, the Measures were revised to reflect the Implementation Regulations of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests requiring truthful identity information and explicit factual basis for complaints. Thus, the definition of complaint materials was refined to require the complainant’s name, telephone number, and contact address, emphasizing that this information must be truthful and not fabricated or misused. The factual basis of the consumer rights dispute must also be provided to clarify the issue early in the process and improve mediation efficiency.

The Measures additionally allow market supervision authorities to request identity documentation in certain cases to verify true identity, while strictly protecting personal data privacy. The nationwide 12315 platform already supports real-name authentication, making it convenient for consumers to register and authenticate; for hotline or written complaints, only basic truthful contact details are typically required. However, if information is incomplete, false, or appears to be used by multiple parties in suspicious patterns, authorities may verify identity documents under the law.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *