紅米Note3發生自燃 用戶簽署保密協議後才獲賠
According to Beijing Morning Post, a Redmi Note 3 smartphone, bought by a consumer in March 2016, spontaneously combusted while charging on Dec. 21.
據《北京晨報》報道，一位消費者於2016年3月購買的一部紅米Note3智能手機在12月21日充電時發生自燃。A Xiaomi official promised to refund and compensate the consumer on the condition of her signing a confidentiality agreement, prohibiting her from commenting publicly on the event.
小米一位官方人士承諾對其進行退款和賠償，但是前提是該消費者簽署一份保密協議，即禁止她公開對此事進行評論。The woman, surnamed Zhang, said that the phone started to discharge smoke 10 minutes after it began charging on Dec. 21. It then spontaneously combusted, burning the SIM card and her bed sheets.
這位姓張的女士表示，這部手機於12月21日在充電10分鐘後就開始冒煙。而後發生自燃，把她的SIM卡和牀單都給燒了。
Zhang added that she used the original charging device and did not know what caused the phone's combustion.
張女士補充說道，她使用的是原裝充電器，但是不知道是什麼造成了手機自燃。
After several conversations with the Xiaomi's customer service representatives, Zhang was promised a full refund plus an additional 600 RMB($86) as compensation -- just as long as she agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement.
在與小米客服代表進行數次溝通後，張女士獲得了全額退款，外加600元人民幣（86美元）的賠償--只要她同意簽署一份保密協議。"The agreement prohibited me from commenting on the event to any media outlets, or on public networks or communication platforms. It was like hush money," said Zhang, who ultimately agreed to sign the agreement.
最終同意簽署該協議的張女士說道：“協議要求我不得在任何媒體、公共網絡和其它任何傳播平臺發表此事處理的言論。這哪裏像賠償，簡直就是封口費。”Not long after, however, a Beijing-based lawyer, Zhang Xinnian, argued that the confidentiality clause in the agreement was invalid. The merchant's intention to cover up the complaint goes against relevant provisions of contract law.
然而不久之後，北京一位名叫張新年的律師稱，協議中的保密條款無效。廠家的目的是爲了掩蓋投訴，這有違《合同法》的相關規定。Zhang also pointed out that, as there are so many Xiaomi smartphones on the market, the Administration for Industry and Commerce must launch a prompt investigation to minimize potential risks, ensuring the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
張律師還指出，由於市場上存在大量小米智能手機，因此工商部門必須立刻展開調查，將潛在危險降至最低，保證消費者們的合法權益。
