2025年9月12日，上海市黃浦區人民法院對震驚社會的「海底撈火鍋小便案」作出一審判決，裁定兩名年僅17歲的涉事少年唐某與吳某需承擔侵權責任，其父母作為監護人則需代為賠償合計220萬元人民幣，並在指定媒體上公開道歉。這起案件不僅因行為本身極其惡劣引發公憤，更因涉及企業商譽、消費者信任以及法律責任的界定，成為公共輿論的焦點。

事件的起因要追溯至2025年2月24日凌晨，唐某與吳某在上海某海底撈門店的包間用餐。二人不僅在席間起鬨，甚至當場站上餐桌，將尿液排入火鍋之中，並用手機拍下這段荒唐行徑。這段影片後來於2月27日被吳某發布至朋友圈，迅速在網絡上擴散，輿論隨即炸鍋。社會輿論普遍認為，這種行為不僅侮辱餐廳，也嚴重侵犯消費者的知情權與安全感，甚至有潛在公共衛生風險。

事件曝光後，警方於3月8日依法對二人作出行政拘留處分。然而，事件帶來的後果遠不止於此。面對鋪天蓋地的輿論壓力與消費者恐慌，海底撈於3月12日緊急發布聲明，採取極為嚴厲的補救措施。涉事門店的所有餐具一律銷毀，整體場地也進行深度消毒。更為激進的是，對於2月24日至3月8日期間在該門店消費的4109筆訂單，海底撈選擇全額退款，並額外支付十倍賠償，總支出超過千萬元。這種做法在當時被視為企業極力維護品牌信譽與消費者信任的緊急止損手段。

法院審理後認定，唐某與吳某的行為不僅造成餐具等財產損耗，更對海底撈的經營秩序與社會聲譽造成嚴重侵害，構成共同侵權。由於二人尚未成年，其父母未盡到監護責任，因此需承擔相應賠償責任。法院最終判決要求其支付餐具損耗與消毒清洗費13萬元，並就經營損失、商譽損失以及相關維權費用合計220萬元予以賠償。同時，涉事者及其父母必須在保護未成年人隱私的前提下，通過指定媒體向社會公開致歉。

然而，案件中仍存在一定的爭議焦點。海底撈最初的索賠金額高達2300萬元，法院則最終僅支持部分「合理損失」。法院明確指出，企業自發提出的「十倍賠償」雖然屬於消費者保護與品牌維護的商業決策，但其性質屬於企業的自主行為，並非由侵權行為直接導致，因而不應由侵權方承擔。

此案的裁決既是一堂公共法治課，也反映出餐飲企業在面對突發事件時如何平衡消費者權益與自身品牌的挑戰。一方面，海底撈以高額補償換取消費者的信任，展現負責任的一面；另一方面，法院的判決也劃定了侵權責任的邊界，避免企業的商業決策完全轉嫁給個人，對未成年人監護責任與企業維權界限都作出司法層面的明確回應。

On September 12, 2025, the Huangpu District People’s Court in Shanghai delivered a first-instance verdict on the notorious “Haidilao Hotpot Urination Incident.” The court ruled that the two 17-year-old boys involved, Tang and Wu, were responsible for jointly infringing on property and reputation, and that their parents, as legal guardians, must compensate a total of 2.2 million RMB and issue a public apology. The case attracted widespread attention not only because of the shocking behavior itself but also due to its implications for corporate reputation, consumer trust, and the boundaries of legal responsibility.

The incident began in the early hours of February 24, 2025, when Tang and Wu were dining in a private room at a Haidilao branch in Shanghai. During the meal, they shockingly stood on the dining table and urinated into the hotpot, recording the act on their phones. On February 27, Wu shared the video on his social media circle, causing it to spread rapidly online and triggering public outrage. The general sentiment was that their actions were not only insulting to the restaurant but also seriously violated consumers’ rights and sense of safety, with potential public health risks.

Following the viral spread of the video, the police administratively detained the two teenagers on March 8. The consequences extended far beyond legal punishment. In response to the incident and the public outcry, Haidilao issued a statement on March 12, implementing strict corrective measures. The restaurant destroyed all utensils from the affected branch and conducted thorough disinfection. In addition, Haidilao offered full refunds to 4,109 customers who had dined there between February 24 and March 8, along with tenfold compensation, resulting in total expenditures exceeding 10 million RMB. These actions were widely seen as emergency measures to protect the company’s brand and restore consumer trust.

The court determined that Tang and Wu’s behavior not only caused property damage but also seriously harmed Haidilao’s business operations and social reputation, constituting joint infringement. Since the two were minors, their parents had failed in their supervisory responsibilities and were therefore held liable. The final judgment required compensation for utensil damage and cleaning costs amounting to 130,000 RMB, with a total of 2.2 million RMB covering business losses, reputational damage, and litigation expenses. Additionally, the court ordered that the teenagers and their parents publicly apologize through designated media while ensuring the minors’ privacy protection.

There were still points of contention in the case. Haidilao initially sought 23 million RMB in damages, but the court only upheld compensation for reasonable losses. The court clarified that the company’s decision to provide tenfold compensation was a voluntary business action to maintain customer trust and brand image, and was not directly caused by the infringement. Therefore, it should not be attributed to the perpetrators.

This case serves both as a public legal lesson and as a reflection of how restaurants must balance consumer rights and corporate reputation during crises. On one hand, Haidilao’s high compensation demonstrated responsibility and commitment to its customers; on the other hand, the court’s ruling established clear boundaries for liability, ensuring that the company’s business decisions were not fully shifted onto individuals and reinforcing the legal responsibilities of parents toward their minor children.

The case sparked broader discussion about consumer protection, corporate accountability, and juvenile supervision, highlighting the complex interplay between legal responsibility, public perception, and crisis management.