攀枝花学院学报

网络食品交易的快速发展使食品安全风险呈现出隐蔽化、扩散化与主体复杂化等新特征，惩罚性赔偿制度在该领域的司法适用亦面临诸多争议。基于4989份网络食品安全纠纷裁判文书的实证分析，系统梳理了惩罚性赔偿在司法实践中的适用现状与主要分歧。研究发现，当前裁判困境主要集中于食品标签瑕疵是否构成不符合食品安全标准、经营者主观“明知”的证明方式、职业打假人主体资格认定以及直播带货等新业态下责任主体交叉化与证据固定困难等方面，不同裁判路径在风险预防、责任限制与制度功能理解上存在显著差异。文章在风险社会理论、惩罚性赔偿功能理论与利益衡量理论的分析框架下，揭示上述分歧产生的制度根源，并指出新兴交易模式对传统裁判规则提出的挑战。通过引入实证方法与技术赋能司法的分析视角，论证在现有规范体系内通过完善责任认定逻辑、优化证据审查方式与强化技术要素运用，以提升惩罚性赔偿制度适用的规范性与可预期性。

With the rapid expansion of online food transactions， food safety risks have become increasingly concealed， diffusive， and structurally complex， giving rise to persistent controversies over the judicial application of punitive damages. Based on an empirical analysis of 4，989 judicial decisions concerning online food safety disputes， this study systematically examines the current patterns and major divergences in the application of punitive damages in judicial practice. The findings indicate that key difficulties primarily arise from divergent interpretations of whether labeling defects constitute non-compliance with food safety standards， uncertainties in proving the operator’s subjective “knowledge，” disputes over the legal status of professional plaintiffs， and the growing complexity of liability allocation and evidence preservation in emerging business models such as live-streaming commerce. These divergent judicial approaches reflect differing emphases on risk prevention， liability limitation， and the functional orientation of punitive damages. Drawing on risk society theory， the functional theory of punitive damages， and interest-balancing theory， this study identifies the institutional roots of these divergences and highlights the challenges posed by new transaction models to traditional adjudicative frameworks. By integrating empirical methods with a judicial technology empowerment perspective， the study argues for improving liability determination， evidence evaluation， and the use of technical elements within the existing legal framework to enhance the consistency and predictability of punitive damages in online food safety disputes.