近年来，大规模消费侵权案件屡有发生，现有法律手段在面对这类案件时显得捉襟见肘，为了更好地打击大规模消费侵权行为，保护消费者权益，不少学者、法官主张引入消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿制度。然而，当前对于消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿，实务界做法各异，学术界存在严重分歧。下面将通过系统分析我国消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的制度目的、功能，明确制度定位，尝试提出解决消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿问题的建议。

当前我国消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿存在法律规定不明确、制度定位不清、赔偿金计算不合理、赔偿金的管理与使用方式不统一等问题。消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的制度目的在于维护消费领域公共利益，主要功能是补偿消费公益损害，包括众多不特定消费者的私益损失以及消费领域其他公共利益的损害。其次要功能是惩罚与威慑，通过要求不法经营者承担其所造成的全部损失，可实现惩罚与威慑的效果。在面对大规模消费侵权案件时，现有法律体系存在救济真空，私益诉讼惩罚性赔偿起诉量和惩罚倍率的“双低”难以使全部社会成本内部化，行政罚款和刑事罚金最终上缴国库难以弥补消费公益损失。消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的制度定位在于弥补大规模消费侵权案件中的救济真空。对于消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿与私益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的关系，当部分消费者在先提起私益诉讼且获得法院支持后，后续的消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿金应当减去私益诉讼惩罚性赔偿金，消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿获得法院支持后，不得再提起私益诉讼主张惩罚性赔偿，但是消费者对未完全弥补的私益损害提起补偿性赔偿请求的应当允许。对于与公法责任的关系，消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿金与行政罚款、刑事罚金性质不同，相互独立，不得进行抵扣。我国消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿与美国承担社会损害补偿功能的惩罚性赔偿以及德国撇去不法收益之诉具有相似性，借鉴美国和德国的相关做法对我国完善消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿制度具有积极意义。应当尽快完善立法，明确消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的请求权基础、适用标准以及赔偿金的计算方式，建立消费公益基金管理和使用消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿金。

In recent years, large-scale consumer infringement cases have occurred frequently, and the existing legal means can not deal with these situations. Punitive damages system in consumer public interest litigation has become the focus of attention in theory and practice. At present, there are different views in practice and in academic circles. This paper tries to put forward some suggestions to solve the existing problems of punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation by systematically analyzing the system purpose and function and clarifying the system positioning.

At present, there are some problems in punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation, such as unclear legal provisions, unclear system positioning, unreasonable compensation calculation, and inconsistent management of compensation. The purpose of this system is to maintain the public interest,and it’s main function is compensation,including the loss of private interests and the damage of public goods in the field of consumption.It’s secondary function is punishment and deterrence. By requiring illegal operators to bear all the losses of consumer public interest, the effect of punishment and deterrence can be achieved. In the face of large-scale consumer infringement cases, there is a crack in the existing legal system. Punitive damage is difficult to internalize all social costs. Administrative fines and criminal fines are finally turned over to the state treasury and it is difficult to make up for the loss of consumer public interest. The system positioning of the system is to repair the crack in large-scale consumer infringement cases. As for the relationship between punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation and punitive damages in private interest litigation, when some consumers sue first and get court support, the punitive damages in subsequent consumer public interest litigation should be deducted from punitive damages in private interest litigation. After the punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation get court support, they should not claim punitive damages, but consumers should be allowed to file compensatory damages for incomplete private interest damage. As for the relationship between punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation and administrative fines, the property of these two systems are different, and they cannot be deducted. Confiscation of illegal income and punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation have overlapping functions, and they cannot be used together. The punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation in China is similar to the punitive damages in the United States that undertakes the function of social damage compensation and the lawsuit of discarding illegal gains in Germany. It is of positive significance to learn from the relevant practices in the United States and Germany to improve the punitive damages system in consumer public interest litigation in China. We should improve legislation as soon as possible, clarify the right of claim and the calculation method of compensation, establish consumer public interest funds to manage and use punitive damages properly.