Article 38 of China's E-Commerce Law establishes the security care obligations of e-commerce platform operators, and extends the applicable medium of security care obligations from physical space to virtual cyberspace, which is conducive to strengthening the protection of consumers' personal and property safety. However, the legislative expression of Article 38 of the E-Commerce Law is not refined enough, which makes it possible for paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article to overlap in application scope, and there is a value evaluation contradiction in the allocation of responsibilities. Moreover, this article does not establish a clear standard for identifying the fault, damage, causality and other constituent elements of the tort liability of platform operators for breaching security care obligations, which brings difficulties to the application of law in judicial decisions. In addition, the expression of “corresponding liability” in Article 38(2) is too vague and generalized, giving the referee too much discretion. Furthermore, the academic community has been arguing about the form of liability of corresponding liability, which leads to inconsistency in judicial practice. In order to eliminate the above disadvantages, in terms of system coordination, it should be considered that Article 38(1) regulates contributory infringement, and “should know” in this paragraph should be interpreted as “have reason to know”. Article 38(2) regulates separate torts with concurrent causation. Platform operators who meet this case type must have no intention to help the operators in the platform to implement the infringement. This can clarify the scope of application of the two paragraphs of Article 38, and resolve the value evaluation contradiction between them. In terms of liability composition, it should be considered that the object of protection of Article 38(1) covers all civil rights and interests that may be infringed by the perpetrator through the network. The fault judgment of violating this paragraph can be determined by drawing lessons from the fault judgment rules of indirect tort liability of network service providers. The determination of causality in violation of this paragraph can be simplified through the implicature and integrity of behaviors of the aider and the aided. The object of protection of Article 38(2) is limited to the rights and interests of natural persons in life and health. The fault judgment of violating this paragraph can be determined by referring to the judgment standard of tort liability for violating the safety guarantee obligation of public places stipulated in Article 1198 of the Civil Code. The causality judgment of violating this paragraph should be based on the premise of distinguishing whether consumers are infringed by platform operators or operators in the platform, flexibly apply the causality test methods such as but-for-test, adequate causation theory, foreseeability theory or danger scope theory. In this way, we can construct a perfect standard for liability composition of platform operators who violate their security obligations. On the apportionment of tort liability, it is necessary to classify the subjective mentality of the platform operators and operators in the platform when they commit tort acts. To be specific, when both are negligent infringement, “corresponding liability” should be interpreted as proportional liability; When the two are intentional infringement and negligent infringement respectively, “corresponding liability” should be interpreted as partial joint and several liability. When both are intentional infringement, “corresponding liability” should be interpreted as joint and several liability. This can clarify the specific meaning of “corresponding liability” and provide clear guidance for judicial practice.