The exponential growth of Cross-Border E-Commerce (CBEC) has fundamentally disrupted the traditional framework of private international law. While the digitalization of trade facilitates global market access, it creates profound legal uncertainty regarding the protection of consumers, who are structurally the weaker party in B2C transactions. This paper investigates the conflict of laws issues inherent in CBEC, specifically examining the determination of jurisdiction and the applicable law (lex causae) when disputes arise between consumers and foreign vendors. By conducting a comparative analysis of the European Union's Rome I Regulation and Brussels I Recast, the United States' "minimum contacts" doctrine, and China's Law on the Application of Laws to Foreign-related Civil Relations, this study identifies a shift from strict territoriality to a "directed activity" standard. The research argues that while party autonomy remains a cornerstone of contract law, it must be curtailed in consumer contracts to prevent the evasion of mandatory protective norms. Furthermore, the paper evaluates the efficacy of traditional judicial remedies versus Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms, proposing a harmonized legal framework that balances commercial predictability with substantial consumer justice.
Wu Ziying (Wed,) studied this question.