Scenario: Ms. Yen books a facial treatment through a beauty-booking platform. The platform-dispatched technician uses cosmetics causing a severe allergy; she is hospitalised. The platform says “we’re only a matchmaking intermediary”; the technician cannot pay damages. Whom can she claim against?
The “mere connector” defence no longer holds
Many service platforms brand themselves “matchmaking intermediaries” to dodge liability. But the E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 (effective 1 July 2026) regulates by nature of activity: where a platform takes fees, holds money, dispatches providers, processes payments and complaints, it is no longer a “pure connector” but a participant in the service-supply chain with corresponding duties. Platform liability scales with control: the tighter the control (recruitment, training, pricing, dispatch, ratings), the harder the “mere platform” defence.
Allocating liability when incidents occur
The general principle: the direct service provider (technician, repairer, tutor) answers for their work quality under the service contract with the customer (2015 Civil Code). The platform answers within its fault: failing to check providers’ practising qualifications (e.g., letting uncertified technicians provide medical or invasive beauty services); keeping repeatedly-complained providers listed; misadvertising provider credentials or quality; or platform policies contributing to the incident. In Ms. Yen’s case, if the platform never checked the cosmetics’ origin or the technician’s qualifications while advertising an “expert team”, it will struggle to escape joint liability for treatment costs.
What consumers should do after an incident
Step one: ensure safety and preserve evidence — medical records, treatment bills, condition photos, on-platform booking history, chat logs. Step two: complain simultaneously to the platform (intervention and compensation per policy) and the provider. Step three: if unresolved — report to sectoral regulators (health, education, market surveillance) and sue for damages (treatment costs, lost income, moral damages) under the 2015 Civil Code. For conditional services (healthcare, education), unlicensed providers face administrative fines and criminal prosecution — and facilitating platforms may face related liability.
Frequently asked questions
An app-booked electrician fries your appliances — who pays?
The repairer bears primary workmanship liability. The platform answers for selection and control faults (e.g., never verifying skills, dispatching repeatedly-complained workers). Complain against both.
A platform tutor teaches wrong material — compensation?
Large material damages are hard to claim, but fee refunds, contract termination and honest reviews are available. Platforms must verify advertised tutor credentials — fake “top-scorer tutor” ads violate advertising law.
Must platforms insure service users?
Current law does not require it, but many platforms voluntarily carry transaction liability insurance as a competitive edge. Users should prefer platforms with clear protection and compensation policies.
