流量造假的一体化治理

Integrated Governance of Traffic Fraud

中文关键词:  流量造假  法律规制  行刑衔接  民事公益诉讼  一体化治理

英文关键词:traffic fraud  legal regulation  connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice  civil public interest litigation  integrated governance

中文摘要:

      流量造假行为严重破坏网络生态和市场秩序,然而,现有法律规制体系存在明显漏洞。在公法层面,“抬高身价型”流量造假因缺乏明确法律定性而面临规制空白；在私法层面,民事公益诉讼存在赔偿额度不足、起诉概率低的问题,难以形成有效威慑；在治理机制层面,平台缺乏主动治理动力,难以通过公私协同对流量造假进行有效治理。单独通过刑事手段、公益诉讼或者平台治理等方式,虽然可以发挥一定的作用,但仍会顾此失彼,无法有效解决流量造假的治理难题。需要打破传统部门法之间的藩篱,通过一体化治理机制使法律体系更具系统性、整体性与协调性,从而可以针对不同阶段、不同情况的流量造假问题采取有效的应对手段。具体应当构建以行政程序作为前置程序、民事公益诉讼作为补充的责任分层体系；通过发布平台治理排行榜、实施执法激励等措施激发平台主动治理意愿；并通过建立跨部门信息共享平台等方案促进程序衔接。

英文摘要:

      Traffic fraud severely undermines the online ecosystem and market order, yet prominent loopholes remain in the current legal regulation system. At the public law level, “value-inflation” traffic fraud falls into an unregulated vacuum due to the absence of a clear legal characterization. At the private law level, civil public interest litigation suffers from insufficient compensation and a low probability of initiating lawsuits, failing to form effective deterrence. At the governance mechanism level, platforms lack endogenous motivation for proactive regulation, making it difficult to effectively curb traffic fraud through public-private collaboration. Relying solely on criminal measures, public interest litigation, or platform self-regulation may yield only limited results. Each mechanism, when operating in isolation, is inevitably constrained by its own institutional scope and therefore unable to effectively tackle the governance challenges posed by traffic fraud. It is necessary to break down the traditional boundaries between branches of law and establish an integrated governance framework to make the legal system more systematic, holistic, and coordinated, thereby enabling targeted countermeasures against traffic fraud across different stages and scenarios. Specifically, a tiered liability system shall be constructed with administrative procedures as a prerequisite and civil public interest litigation as a supplement. In addition, measures such as publishing platform governance rankings and implementing law enforcement incentive schemes should be adopted to stimulate platforms' willingness to engage in proactive governance. Meanwhile, cross-departmental information sharing platforms should be established to promote procedural coordination. 