Consumers win second trial in plasticizer class action, cumulative damages awarded 3.94 million yuan

Five years ago, a plasticizer scandal erupted when many well-known brands of sports drinks, enzyme drinks, fruit juice, jam and concentrated fruit juice were all found to contain the possibly carcinogenic plasticizer DEHP. At that time, nearly 460,000 bottles of sports drinks and fruit juice were recalled and taken off the shelves, and 130,000 boxes of probiotic powder packet products were destroyed.

Yesterday, the High Court announced the second-instance ruling in the "plasticizer class action" filed by the Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei. In addition to the 1.2 million yuan awarded in the first instance, an additional more than 2.74 million yuan was awarded in the second instance, for a total of about 3.94 million yuan. Of the 569 consumers so far, only 57 have reached settlements with the operators and manufacturers, and in the second instance, 512 consumers have still not reached settlements with 25 operators including Yusheng.

The 25 operators include: Yusheng Flavor Co., Ltd., Uni-President Enterprises Corp., Pin Han Spice Chemical Co., Ltd., King Car Co., Ltd., Taiwan Sugar Corporation, San To Shi Co., Ltd., Shun Tian Ben Cao Co., Ltd., Tong Shun International Co., Ltd., Malaysian Business Cerebos International Co., Ltd., Yu Hwa Biotech Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Hua Jing Biotechnology Co., Ltd.

Plasticizer Class Action Second Instance: High Court Makes Progress in Recognizing Harm

Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei lawyer Hsu Tse-yu said that the second instance recognized that plasticizers can cause harm to the human body and may damage human health and mental state, and therefore awarded compensation for non-property damage and punitive damages. "Compared with the first instance, which held that plasticizers can be excreted from the human body and do not cause harm, and awarded compensation only for the price of the goods, the second-instance ruling has made progress."

Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei chairman Lu Yun said that although the total amount awarded is far from what consumers expected, it is still a small step forward for the consumer protection movement, and it is a shot in the arm for class actions such as the tainted oil and Fatty Daddy cases.

Improvements in the Burden of Proof and Compensation Amount System Make Food Safety Protection More Complete

Early consumer protection concepts were not yet complete enough. Hsu Tse-yu said bluntly, "Consumers often have great difficulty bearing the burden of proof." After Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, consumers' rights have indeed received more complete protection, "at least shifting from 'consumers must prove that product ingredients directly harm health' to 'manufacturers must prove that product ingredients are harmless to the human body,'" which is a major step forward.

In addition to shifting the burden of proof from consumers to operators, in recent years the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation has undergone multiple amendments, and compensation amounts have also gone from "20,000 per person per item, gradually rising to 30,000, and now 300,000 per person per item," which is also a major advance in the amendment of the Food Safety Act.

512 Consumers Have Still Not Settled, Further Appeal Not Ruled Out

Food safety problems keep emerging. In response to the fact that the food safety fund is currently used only for class action costs and food safety publicity, Hsu Tse-yu also suggested that in the future it should also be possible to allocate funds to compensate consumers, "after all, sometimes as soon as a food safety incident breaks out, the manufacturer goes bankrupt, and consumers often have nowhere to seek compensation."

In response, the food safety fund business unit of the Food and Drug Administration said that there is currently no plan to allocate compensation funds for consumers, "there would be concern about using the people's tax money to compensate on behalf of unscrupulous manufacturers, which is not quite appropriate," and that for now the food safety fund will still mainly subsidize consumer group class action costs.

Of the 569 consumers so far, only 57 have reached settlements with the operators and manufacturers, and in the second instance, 512 consumers have still not reached settlements with 25 operators including Yusheng.

The Consumers' Foundation said that because the formal judgment has not yet been received, its pro bono lawyers will later conduct internal deliberations to decide whether to appeal. If it appeals again, it will file claims in accordance with Article 7, Article 7-1 and Article 8 of the Consumer Protection Act.