According to a report on April 13, a tourist recently rented a car from a company in Chengdu, Sichuan for one day. When returning the car and inspecting it, the tourist found tiny scratches on the headlights. The merchant not only refused to refund the deposit but insisted on replacing the headlights and demanded that the tourist bear the costs of replacement parts, lost work time, and depreciation, totaling nearly 70,000 yuan. After local authorities intervened and investigated, they imposed an administrative penalty on the merchant, and the merchant refunded the consumer's deposit.

　　It needs to be clarified that the company involved was penalized not merely because of "inspecting the car with a lamp," but because other illegal acts were discovered. The earlier "inspecting the apartment with a lamp" incident was in fact the same. The landlord was criminally detained for hitting someone with a brick, and "handling according to law and regulations" was also because the house had illegal construction. As for the controversial "assessing damage with a lamp," it ended with "returning the compensation after education."

　　Many disputes in real life often do not involve extreme scenarios like "assessing damage with a lamp," but these ordinary cases also often find it difficult to attract public attention. If there were no strict law enforcement and judiciary by relevant departments, victims would likely fall into the awkward position of having no way to defend their rights. From "inspecting the apartment with a lamp" to "inspecting the car with a lamp," why is seeking legal help not the parties' **? Why do rights defenders not pick up the weapon of law?

　　Different "inspections with a lamp ×" may share the same dilemma in defending rights: on the one hand, for most people, the time cost, lost work cost, transportation cost, and so on of litigation are all "unbearable burdens," and may even produce many "indirect losses." On the other hand, it is also because the cost of some illegal acts is too low, while legal punishment measures are limited. The various costs invested by some rights defenders plus the public resources consumed far exceed the costs of the losing party.

　　Can the losing party be made to bear the necessary rights-protection costs of the defending party? This solution path may be worth considering. China's Civil Code stipulates that if one party fails to perform contractual obligations or performs them inconsistently with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continued performance, remedial measures, or compensation for losses. Some professionals also point out that consideration may be given to including the necessary costs invested by the rights-defending party within the scope of compensation, and public resources such as judicial resources that are excessively occupied and abused because of wrongdoers should also be reasonably shared by the relevant illegal actors.

　　In any case, in dispute cases, beyond "mediation" and "education," it is necessary to build smoother, more precise, and more powerful channels for defending rights. Only by letting law-abiding people dare to pick up the weapon of law and making wrongdoers fear appearing in the defendant's dock can individual rights and interests be better protected. Otherwise, one problem will no sooner be solved than another will emerge; even if "inspecting the car with a lamp" is dealt with, it will be hard to ensure there will not be another "inspecting with a lamp ×" or other variant.