2025年10月9日，中國最高人民法院近期正式確認「海底撈小便事件」民事判決結果生效，案件最終以賠償金220萬元人民幣落幕，成為近年來未成年人惡意行為導致企業名譽受損案件中最具代表性的案例之一。

事件最初發生於今年2月24日凌晨，地點位於上海某家海底撈火鍋門店。兩名年僅17歲的少年唐某與吳某，在用餐結束後竟站上餐桌，當眾對火鍋鍋底小便，並互相錄下整個過程。更令人震驚的是，兩人事後將影片上傳至朋友圈，引發網路快速傳播。視頻曝光後引起公眾譁然，輿論普遍譴責其行為嚴重違背社會公德，並對餐飲衛生與顧客安全造成極大不安。

上海警方介入調查後，根據《治安管理處罰法》對兩人作出行政拘留處罰。由於二人均屬未成年人，警方在懲處的同時，也強調了「依法懲戒與教育並行」的原則。新修訂的《治安管理處罰法》明確指出，對於已滿14歲但未滿18歲的青少年，如初次違法但情節惡劣，亦可依法實施拘留，以防止類似「惡作劇」行為再度發生。

海底撈方面在事件爆發後迅速採取行動。3月12日，海底撈官方微博發佈聲明，向公眾致歉，並宣佈將涉事門店所有餐具全部銷毀重置，整店進行全面深度消毒。同時，對事發時段至完成消毒期間內的4109筆顧客訂單實施「全額退款＋十倍現金補償」，展現出企業對消費者安全的高度重視。

然而，這起事件不僅造成物質損失，更嚴重損害了品牌商譽。四川某餐飲管理集團與上海分公司於3月14日正式向法院提起訴訟，控告唐某、吳某及其父母名譽侵權與財產損害，並要求其公開道歉與賠償損失，索賠金額高達2325.93萬元人民幣。

9月12日，上海市黃浦區人民法院作出一審判決，認定被告行為對原告的品牌形象及經營利益造成重大損害。法院指出，雖然兩名行為人屬未成年人，但其父母作為監護人，未盡到充分的監護責任，應承擔連帶賠償義務。最終判決要求唐某、吳某及其父母在保護未成年隱私的前提下，於指定報刊上公開向海底撈道歉，並共同賠償餐具損耗、清潔消毒、營業損失、商譽損害與維權支出等費用，共計220萬元人民幣。

最高人民法院近期對該判決予以維持，裁定正式生效。法律界人士指出，此案不僅體現司法機關在保護企業合法權益上的堅決態度，也為社會敲響警鐘——即便行為人是未成年人，若造成嚴重後果，亦需依法承擔相應責任。

該事件的社會反響極大。輿論普遍認為，這一判決在明確責任歸屬的同時，也為青少年教育與家庭監管提供了深刻啟示。從公共道德、家庭教育到企業維權，整起案件揭示在網絡時代下「惡作劇」行為的嚴重性與社會後果，成為法律與道德交織下的典型案例。

On October 9, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court officially confirmed the civil judgment in the “Haidilao Urination Incident,” finalizing the case with a compensation order of 2.2 million yuan (RMB). The verdict marks one of the most representative cases in recent years involving minors whose malicious behavior caused significant reputational damage to a major corporation.

The incident originated in the early morning of February 24, 2025, at a Haidilao hotpot restaurant in Shanghai. Two 17-year-old boys, surnamed Tang and Wu, climbed onto the dining table after finishing their meal and urinated directly into the hotpot broth while filming each other. Shockingly, they later uploaded the footage to their social media “Moments,” leading to its rapid spread online. The video caused public outrage, as many condemned the act as a severe violation of social morality that raised serious concerns about food safety and consumer trust.

Following an investigation, Shanghai police imposed administrative detention on both teenagers under China’s Public Security Administration Punishment Law. Since both offenders were minors, authorities emphasized the principle of “combining punishment with education.” The newly amended law explicitly allows for administrative detention of minors aged 14 to 18 for serious first-time offenses, underscoring the need to deter similar “pranks” that could cause widespread harm.

Haidilao responded swiftly and decisively. On March 12, the company issued a public apology via its official Weibo account, announcing that all tableware from the affected restaurant would be destroyed and replaced, and that the entire location would undergo comprehensive disinfection. Furthermore, the company refunded all 4,109 customers who had dined during the affected period and provided each with cash compensation ten times the order amount, demonstrating an exceptional commitment to consumer safety and brand integrity.

Despite these actions, the company suffered not only material losses but also severe reputational harm. On March 14, Haidilao’s parent company in Sichuan and its Shanghai branch filed a lawsuit against Tang, Wu, and their parents, accusing them of defamation and property damage. The plaintiffs demanded a public apology and sought 23.26 million yuan in damages.

On September 12, the Shanghai Huangpu District People’s Court delivered its first-instance verdict, ruling that the defendants’ actions had caused substantial harm to Haidilao’s brand image and business operations. Although Tang and Wu were minors, the court found that their parents had failed to fulfill their guardianship responsibilities and should therefore bear joint liability. The court ordered Tang, Wu, and their parents to issue a public apology to Haidilao—while protecting the minors’ identities—and to compensate the company for damages including tableware replacement, cleaning and disinfection costs, business interruption, reputational loss, and legal expenses, totaling 2.2 million yuan.

The Supreme People’s Court upheld the decision, declaring it legally binding. Legal experts noted that the case underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on protecting corporate rights and reputations while sending a powerful message to society: being a minor does not exempt one from responsibility if the consequences of one’s actions are severe.

The case has sparked widespread public discussion in China. Many view the ruling as a milestone that not only clarifies accountability but also highlights the importance of parental supervision and moral education for young people. It serves as a sobering reminder that in the digital age, so-called “pranks” can have far-reaching legal and social consequences—making this case a landmark example at the intersection of law, ethics, and public responsibility.