Breaking News! A media report on public opinion supervision faces a 5.2 million yuan hefty lawsuit: Preventing the use of judicial litigation to suppress public opinion oversight

Stock trading relies on Golden Qilin analysts’ research reports, which are authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive, helping you uncover potential thematic opportunities!

Source: Jingzhao FQian Dian

Introduction:

When Zhengguan News was found guilty of infringement for “reporting according to the judgment,” resulting in a compensation of 30,000 yuan; when a pharmaceutical company in Changzhou filed a huge compensation claim of 5.2 million yuan for reporting on drug production complaints, and blocked public hearings under the pretext of “commercial secrets” — these two seemingly independent cases are tearing apart the fatal wound between public opinion supervision and judicial litigation.

When the judiciary becomes a tool to suppress supervision, the public’s right to know will become an empty talk, and the bottom line of social justice will be severely eroded.

In October 2025, a state media outlet published a report revealing that a pharmaceutical company in Changzhou was reported for using unqualified chemical factory L-carnitine to repackage and disguise the production of L-carnitine injection.

According to media reports, the core evidence includes evidence and accusations related to the whistleblower and the original company legal person Yu, as well as proof signed and stamped by multiple frontline workers, confirming the source of the raw materials from 2001 to 2009.

Additionally, in early 2023, the Jiangsu Provincial Drug Administration’s reply to public complaints had previously determined that this behavior should be dealt with as counterfeit drugs.

However, after the exposed pharmaceutical company failed to get the media to delete the article, it filed a lawsuit against the local court — the People’s Court of Tianning District, Changzhou.

The compensation amount surprisingly reached 5.2 million yuan.

On the morning of March 24, the case was heard at the People’s Court of Tianning District, Changzhou.

Multiple media outlets and the public attended to listen.

However, just about 15 minutes before the hearing, the plaintiff, the exposed pharmaceutical company, suddenly applied to the court for a closed trial on the grounds of involving “commercial secrets.”

The judge immediately agreed to the application, directly turning the originally scheduled public hearing on defamation into a “closed-door hearing.”

Although many reporters and members of the public on site expressed doubts, the court still expelled all observers.

A media reporter present revealed that since the lawsuit against the media for “public opinion supervision” reported infringement of the company’s reputation, the public should know which content is inaccurate? What are the faults?

After unsuccessful negotiations, several media reporters complained to Jiangsu’s 12368, but so far there has been no result.

A person who went to listen to the proceedings asserted that a media outlet from outside the area exposed a local enterprise, and the local court held such a “protective” hearing, making it highly likely that the media would lose the case.

In fact, there has been another recent case where the media was “strangely” found liable due to public reporting.

In 2021, a homicide occurred in Suzhou, Anhui, where the former father-in-law Zong killed his ex-son-in-law Wang Long with a knife, and was sentenced to death by the Suzhou Intermediate Court in the first instance. Zhengguan News objectively reported the facts of the case based on the first-instance judgment, clearly marked as “first instance,” with no fabrication or derogatory content.

However, Zong and his daughter filed a lawsuit more than three years after the report was published, claiming that the report did not indicate “not in effect,” leading to public misjudgment.

On December 9, 2025, this article, which had no obvious faults, was deemed by the Suzhou Yongqiao District Court to constitute defamation, ordering the media to post a top apology for 30 days and pay 20,000 yuan in mental damage compensation plus 10,000 yuan in lawyer fees, totaling 30,000 yuan.

The case has now been appealed, and the second trial has already been held but has not yet been announced.

Previously, the exposure of Zhengguan News’ defeat case attracted widespread attention from the media and society. The Zhengguan News case made the media realize that even objective reporting based on judicial documents could still be deemed infringing due to “procedural flaws”;

The Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case warns that supervision reports involving corporate interests will face the dual pressures of high compensation claims and procedural blockades.

When “reporting equals liability, supervision equals infringement” becomes the norm, the media will dare not touch core public areas such as drug safety and judicial fairness, ultimately leading to the paralysis of the social supervision system.

So, what fatal harm will result from judicial litigation suppressing public opinion supervision?

Harm One: Distorting the essence of justice, eroding judicial credibility

The core function of the judiciary is to resolve disputes and uphold justice, not to become a weapon for enterprises to suppress supervision.

In the Zhengguan News case, the court’s judgment based on the first-instance effective document found infringement, but did not specify which content in the report was “inaccurate,” essentially using judicial logic to deny the objective laws of news, causing the public to question judicial fairness.

In the Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case, the company used “commercial secrets” to block public hearings, using litigation procedures to cover up the truth, turning the judiciary into a “shame cover” for avoiding supervision.

When the judiciary is no longer the backing for supervision but instead becomes a tool for suppression, judicial credibility will completely collapse, and the foundation of a rule-of-law society will be shaken.

Harm Two: Stifling public opinion supervision, depriving the public of the right to know

Public opinion supervision is the “immune system” of society, while judicial litigation suppression is destroying this system.

The judgment in the Zhengguan News case has led media to overly self-censor when reporting judicial cases, afraid to objectively present first-instance facts.

The Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case has made other media hesitant to report on public issues such as drug safety and corporate compliance.

When the media dare not supervise and are unwilling to supervise, the public’s right to know about drug quality and judicial fairness will be deprived, illegal behaviors will run rampant, and social governance will fall into an “information black box.”

Harm Three: Eroding social fairness, tearing apart the balance of public interest

Public opinion supervision and judicial fairness should complement each other to jointly safeguard the public interest. However, the current suppression of litigation is pushing the two toward opposition.

The Zhengguan News case harms the public’s right to know about judicial transparency; the Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case harms the public’s right to health regarding drug safety.

When companies use litigation to cover up production issues and when judicial authorities excessively limit supervisory reports, the ultimate harm is to the interests of the entire public.

Over time, society will form a distorted ecology where “power and money suppress public opinion,” and fairness and justice will become the privilege of a few.

Article 1025 of the Civil Code: News reports and public opinion supervision conducted for public interest that affect others’ reputation (fulfilling verification obligations) shall not bear civil liability.

In the Zhengguan News case, the report is based on judicial documents, and the core facts are true; it should be deemed not to constitute infringement;

The report of the Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case concerns the significant public interest of drug safety, and the media has fulfilled reasonable verification obligations (based on whistleblowers, worker proof, and relevant drug administration determinations, interviewing multiple departments and the involved enterprises), and should not be deemed infringing.

In fact, in recent years, phenomena such as high compensation for suppressing public opinion supervision, lawsuits exceeding the statute of limitations, and procedural abuse have become increasingly prominent.

In the Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case, the 5.2 million compensation obviously exceeds reasonable limits and should be recognized as malicious litigation.

Moreover, for those blocking public interest cases from public hearings under the guise of “commercial secrets,” strict scrutiny of “the truth of the secrets” is required, and abuse of procedures must not occur.

Public opinion supervision is not a monster but a necessary component of a rule-of-law society. The Zhengguan News case and the Changzhou pharmaceutical company’s 5.2 million compensation case should not, and must not, become the norm in the industry.

Sina’s statement: This message is reprinted from Sina’s cooperative media. The publication of this article on Sina.com is for the purpose of conveying more information and does not mean endorsement of its views or confirmation of its descriptions. The content of the article is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors operate at their own risk based on this.