A Shanghai court has ordered the two teens to pay 2.2 million yuan, about $309,000. This decision follows the teens’ racist, anti-Black behavior at a Haidilao restaurant in a case that received national attention. In February, an even more disturbing incident occurred in a well-known restaurant chain. Teenagers urinating in the soup and posting a video of their act online led to their public shaming and being socially condemned.
Its parent company, Haidilao International Holding Ltd., manages more than 1,000 of these popular restaurants around the globe. Now, there was nothing particularly special about that first Jieyang outlet of Haidilao, but it skyrocketed quickly. Now, it’s a hit with diners due to its one-of-a-kind culinary experience. This recent incident has taken a sledgehammer to its credibility and reputation.
In the aftermath of the incident, Haidilao claimed over 23 million yuan in damages to cover business losses and damage to its reputation. The court decided the kids had infringed on the property rights of the restaurant owner. The way they accomplished that was through what the court defined as “acts of insult.” The court added that their actions not only contaminated the restaurant’s tableware but “caused strong discomfort among the public.”
Haidilao rose to the occasion to manage the aftermath of the incident. Compensation was offered to over 4,000 patrons who had dined in the Shanghai branch during that period. Customers were granted full refunds as well as cash compensation equal to ten times the sum of their outstanding bills. This corporate “voluntary business decision” was from a good place of wanting to regain public trust and make affected diners whole.
The court awarded the plaintiffs a total of 2 million yuan for loss of business operation and reputation. Moreover, they need to pay another 130,000 yuan to compensate for tableware damages and cleaning costs incurred by one of the catering service providers involved. They were ordered to pay 70,000 yuan in legal fees.
State media reported that the teenagers “failed to fulfill their duty of guardianship,” underscoring the responsibility that young individuals have towards their actions and their broader implications on society.