电子商务平台经营者在实施自律管理时可能为促使自身利益最大化,损害平台内各类公共利益以及他人合法权益,有必要对其自律管理行为进行司法审查。平台经营者的基本管理义务是其基于侵权责任法、合同法应当承担的法定义务;平台经营者通常还会通过平台规则细化、强化其管理措施,故大多数精准化管理活动是其行使合同债权的表现。在依据格式条款相关规定审查平台规则效力时,既要维护平台内经营者在获取数据等方面的主要权利,又要尊重平台经营者的自治空间,允许平台经营者基于公平原则平衡消费者、知识产权权利人与平台内经营者的利益。网络侵权责任规定、违约金规定、禁止权利滥用规定以及诚信原则是审查平台经营者的具体管理措施是否具有正当性的依据。在依据上述规定进行司法审查时,须注重平台内公共利益的维护。基于诚信原则,平台经营者在指定提交证据的合理期限、建立证据采纳的统一标准等方面负有程序性义务。

In a market economy, as long as it is an e-commerce platform that can survive for a long time, its operators will spontaneously establish a platform autonomy management mechanism to prevent and respond to the infringement of consumers' rights or intellectual property rights that committed by business users on the platform. However, when adopting autonomy management measures, platform operators may harm public interests and other individual's rights, in order to maximize their own interests, so it is necessary to conduct judicial review of their autonomy management behavior.
From an economic point of view, only by effectively solving the problems of behavioral externalities and network externalities can platform operators maintain the survival and development of their platforms. The main way for platform operators to solve the above-mentioned externality problems is to stipulate administrative rules (“platform rules”) in platform service agreements and transaction rules, and accordingly take measures such as warnings, lowering credit ratings, suspending or terminating services, and deducting deposits for consumer rights against platform users that commit torts or breach of the contract. Platform autonomy management has two legal attributes. On the one hand, the basic management obligations of platform operators are the legal obligations they should bear according to the tort liability law and the contract law. On the other hand, platform operators often refine and strengthen their management measures through platform rules, and the precise management on such occasion is mainly the manifestation of platform operators' exercise of contractual claims.
The main basis for platform autonomy management is platform rules. The court should review the validity of platform rules in accordance with rules on standard clauses in laws such as the Civil Code and the E-commerce Law. Where platform rules exclude the right of business users on the platform to access data or exclude the platform operator's obligation to interpret algorithms, this constitutes exclusion of business users' main rights, and shall be considered as invalid standard clauses. When reviewing the amendment procedure of platform rules, the court should follow the principle of counterparty participation established in the E-commerce Law. The purpose of this principle is to protect the survival interests of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that have a strong dependence on the platform. Where a platform operator violates this principle, the adversely affected business users on the platform may claim that the relevant amendment is not binding on themselves.
Where a platform operator deducts a deposit for consumer rights, the court should review it in accordance with rules on punitive liquidated damages. When deciding whether a management measure taken by a platform operator is “necessary”, the court should not rely on the principle of proportionality, because the least adverse alternative approach in the principle of proportionality contradicts the concept of respecting the autonomy of platform operators; in accordance with the least adverse alternative approach, platform operators can only take measures that do the least harm to counterparties, and may not strengthen punitive measures through platform rules. Instead, the court should conduct the review in accordance with rules on liability for online infringement and on the prohibition of abuse of rights. When a platform operator carries out precise management in accordance with effective platform rules, even if it causes damage “beyond the minimum scope” to the business users on the platform, in principle, the court should not intervene. When taking procedural measures to protect intellectual property rights, platform operators should treat intellectual property rights holders and business users on the platform fairly. The procedural obligations of platform operators include: designating a reasonable period for business users on the platform to state facts and to submit evidence, adopting uniform standards for acceptance of evidence, establishing uniform standards of proof for users on each side of the platform, and setting up objection procedures before adopting management measures that might make it difficult to eliminate adverse consequences.