聲明:本文來自于（ID:ykqsd.com）授權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)載發(fā)布。

本文由 環(huán)球網(wǎng) 發(fā)布。

近年來，隨著人工智能技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展，虛擬主播已成為電商直播領(lǐng)域的新興力量。如今，虛擬主播不僅可以在電商平臺、短視頻平臺的商家直播間中看到，各大平臺官方也紛紛推出了自己的官方虛擬主播。

虛擬主播主要分為兩類：一類是人工驅(qū)動型，其操作受真人實(shí)時控制；另一類是AI驅(qū)動型，其操作完全由預(yù)先設(shè)置的AI腳本控制。人工驅(qū)動型主播實(shí)時受真人監(jiān)控，通過捕捉真人動作、表情來實(shí)現(xiàn)主播的互動；而AI驅(qū)動型主播則完全按照預(yù)先設(shè)定的AI腳本執(zhí)行，缺乏實(shí)時互動和情緒表達(dá)。

相對于人工驅(qū)動型虛擬主播，AI驅(qū)動型主播的優(yōu)勢在于24小時在線、成本較低，但受限于當(dāng)前技術(shù)水平，其缺乏自主性和創(chuàng)造力。其互動往往顯得生硬，缺乏真實(shí)感和情感交流。因此，許多商家和消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為，AI驅(qū)動型虛擬主播更適合在夜間使用，而黃金時段則需要真人主播或人工驅(qū)動型主播。

對于人工驅(qū)動型虛擬主播，根據(jù)司法判例， typically involves disputes arising from breach of contract by the幕后 control人. For instance, in a case from the 江蘇省蘇州市虎丘區(qū)人民法院, control人史某與MCN機(jī)構(gòu)簽訂協(xié)議，要求其每月直播一定時間。史某長期未履行合同，法院判決其違約并賠償損失。另一案例中，演員江某因違反保密協(xié)議而被起訴，法院認(rèn)定其行為違反了合同中的保密條款。

虛擬主播銷售的商品若侵害消費(fèi)者權(quán)益，直播帶貨的直播間運(yùn)營者需承擔(dān)哪些責(zé)任呢？筆者認(rèn)為，如果運(yùn)營者 merely serves as a platform for other merchants, they should bear the responsibility of advertising operators and broadcasters as per the 《廣告法》, bearing civil liability for failing to provide accurate advertising information or for disseminating false advertising content.

根據(jù) 《廣告法》, the ad代言人 must explicitly identify the product or service and provide truthful information. If a natural person,法人, or other organization uses their own name or image in an ad, they qualify as an ad代言人. The question arises: can virtual avatars circumvent the ad代言人 liability by being used as broadcaster? Current legal cases lack relevant precedents, but the court should evaluate each case individually based on the specific circumstances.

If a public figure or influencer uses their own image and voice to create virtual avatars for直播帶貨, they can still be viewed as ad代言人. This is because consumers typically trust and rely on their public figure status and influence when purchasing products in their直播間. Thus, they can be held liable for the ad content.

If an unauthorized third party uses a public figure's image or voice to create a virtual avatar for直播帶貨, the public figure cannot be held liable for ad代言. Relevant legal guidelines from the 管理市場監(jiān)管總局等七部門 emphasize that using a star's name or image without authorization constitutes mere advertising, not an ad代言. Therefore, consumers have no grounds to seek liability against the unauthorized use of public figures' images or voices.

If a virtual avatar not associated with any public figure is used as a broadcaster, it does not qualify as an ad代言人 since it lacks legal subjectivity. Regardless of whether the virtual broadcaster is controlled by an artificial intelligence or a human, the responsibility lies with the直播間運(yùn)營者. As the virtual broadcaster merely conveys the operator's will and intentions, the operational responsibility should fall on the直播間運(yùn)營者, not the virtual entity itself. Thus, the直播間運(yùn)營者 should bear civil liability for providing inaccurate information or false advertising content.

小編在研究直播電商相關(guān)法規(guī)時發(fā)現(xiàn)，雖然近年來《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法實(shí)施條例》《網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易管理辦法》《網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播營銷管理辦法（試行）》等法規(guī)對直播電商相關(guān)當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利、義務(wù)和責(zé)任進(jìn)行了明確，但均未對虛擬主播帶貨行為進(jìn)行明確禁止，也均未對利用虛擬主播在直播間進(jìn)行商品推薦和證明行為作出規(guī)范。面對人工智能技術(shù)將更廣泛運(yùn)用的背景，有必要盡快研究相關(guān)立法或修法工作，彌補(bǔ)現(xiàn)有法律、法規(guī)的缺陷，滿足市場監(jiān)管執(zhí)法及司法審判的現(xiàn)實(shí)需要，以充分保障消費(fèi)者合法權(quán)益。

作者簡介如下：

岳屾山，北京市岳成律師事務(wù)所高級合伙人，中國法學(xué)會法治文化研究會理事單位，第十二屆北京市律師協(xié)會法律顧問事務(wù)專業(yè)委員會委員，中國文物保護(hù)基金會專家，北京高校畢業(yè)生就業(yè)促進(jìn)會監(jiān)事，全國工商聯(lián)法律服務(wù)和勞動關(guān)系委員會委員，北京市工商聯(lián)民營經(jīng)濟(jì)健康發(fā)展法治環(huán)境建設(shè)專委會委員，北京市律師協(xié)會法律顧問專業(yè)委員會委員。中國政法大學(xué)法學(xué)院聯(lián)合培養(yǎng)導(dǎo)師，中國青年政治學(xué)院兼職法律碩士導(dǎo)師，黑龍江大學(xué)客座教授，中國政法大學(xué)大學(xué)生職業(yè)教練。