Nav: Home > Coffee >

Coffee Malicious Rights Protection with Tenfold Compensation? What Problems Exist in Coffee Bean Production Standards and Quality

Published: 2026-01-27 Author: FrontStreet Coffee

Last Updated: 2026/01/27, The Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province has concluded a second-instance trial of a purchase contract dispute case, where the court ultimately ruled that the shop must fully refund the consumer's payment amount and also compensate the consumer with ten times the payment amount. The court investigation found that consumer Zhou operates a guesthouse in Jiangxi Province and needed coffee to entertain guests

The Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province, has concluded a second-instance trial of a sales contract dispute case, with the court ultimately ruling that the shop must fully refund the consumer's payment amount and pay compensation equivalent to ten times the purchase price.

According to the court's findings, consumer Zhou, who operates a guesthouse in Jiangxi Province, purchased 10 boxes of black coffee worth 3,750 yuan from an online shop in August 2020. The purchase was made both to serve coffee to guests and for Zhou's personal consumption, as Zhou regularly drinks coffee. After brewing and tasting the coffee, Zhou experienced adverse symptoms including dry heaving, heart palpitations, and throat dryness.

The online shop advertised the coffee as an imported product, so Zhou requested the shop to provide entry inspection reports for the products being sold. However, the shop's customer service only informed Zhou that the products were imported from South Korea without providing any relevant import-export inspection reports. Upon examining the coffee he had purchased, Zhou discovered that the coffee lacked external packaging and consisted of three small bags of loose solid coffee. The packaging bags contained no Chinese labels, and the tags did not include information about the manufacturer, production address, or product ingredients.

Consequently, Zhou sued the online shop on grounds of selling "three-no products" (products without manufacturer information, production date, or quality certification) and demanded a refund of 3,750 yuan plus compensation ten times the purchase price amounting to 37,500 yuan, totaling 41,250 yuan. Additionally, Zhou had purchased coffee from other online shops and had repeatedly claimed ten times compensation from courts on the grounds of substandard products...

Shop's Defense and Court's Ruling

The online shop, of course, was not satisfied! The shop argued that Zhou was not a consumer but rather operated a guesthouse, and purchased coffee primarily to serve guests. The subjective purpose of purchasing the products was for business operations, not for personal consumption. Zhou had also purchased similar products from the online shop multiple times and shortly thereafter demanded compensation, indicating that the purchases were made for the purpose of seeking compensation.

After hearing the case, the court determined that Zhou should be considered a consumer protected by the Consumer Rights Protection Law. From a legislative perspective, when determining whether a natural person falls under the protection of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, one cannot judge solely based on the subjective purpose of purchasing products.

Furthermore, the products sold by the online shop in this case displayed no manufacturer information, production dates, or food safety certificates, nor did the shop submit evidence proving that the products complied with quality standards. Therefore, the court determined that the products sold by the shop did not meet food safety standards.

Coffee Production Standards and Market Challenges

The general production standard for coffee beans is typically NY/T 605. However, in the context of the current specialty coffee market, NY/T 605 shows clear inadequacies. Compared to regular commercial coffee (the type targeted by NY/T 605), the specialty coffee market has different requirements for coffee roasting time. Coffee beans are best consumed within 5-30 days of roasting, and customers request to receive fresh beans. Meanwhile, NY/T 605 requires mandatory pesticide residue testing for each batch of coffee beans before leaving the factory, which takes approximately 10-25 days to complete the factory reports.

Using NY/T 605 for coffee bean production may present risks that could be exploited by malicious rights advocates, requiring special attention. These primarily include issues of false production qualifications or false quality inspection reports: for some small businesses that do not have their own factories and mostly operate through affiliations with third-party production license qualifications, but the shipping location and production location are far apart, sometimes even across provinces. For example, the production location might be in Hubei, while the business and shipping location is in Hangzhou or Shanghai, yet customers can indeed receive freshly roasted coffee beans. Normally, this timeframe wouldn't even allow for the completion of the factory reports required by NY/T 605.

Through the qualification affiliation method, while using the NY/T 605 standard, there may be false production qualifications. In terms of timing, it would be impossible to have the factory reports required by NY/T 605. Therefore, regardless of which aspect, these two points may present some risks, indicating that coffee production standards also need to evolve with the times.

The existence of this problem is because when NY/T 605 was formulated, market requirements for coffee bean freshness were not particularly high. Coffee purchased in shopping malls was typically roasted more than six months earlier. However, as people's requirements for coffee roasting time have become increasingly demanding, NY/T 605 shows clear deficiencies. Small businesses in the specialty coffee sector using NY/T 605 may face complaint risks regarding false production qualifications or quality inspection reports.

Legal Implications for Coffee Sellers

In this particular case, since the online shop indeed sold "three-no products," the consumer's claim for ten times compensation should be supported by the court. However, regarding this matter, if Zhou had used the purchased coffee for commercial purposes, he would also be selling "three-no products," and the consuming guests could similarly sue Zhou using the same reasoning. As a coffee production, operation, and seller, one must ensure that the products sold comply with relevant Chinese laws and regulations.

Image source: Internet

For professional coffee knowledge exchange and more coffee bean information, please follow Coffee Workshop (WeChat official account: cafe_style)

For more specialty coffee beans, please add FrontStreet Coffee on private WeChat, ID: kaixinguoguo0925