Abstract: There is a heated debate in the academic circle about the criminal obligation to block the danger of products. The crux of the problem lies in how to understand the relationship between fact domination and guarantor status. Previous acts that create danger and accepting the responsibility to protect are the two types dominated by the cause of result, which jointly construct the basis for the criminal obligation of blocking risk for the defective product. Unless the danger of the product cannot be discovered by modern technology, the act of dealing in defective products is, in principle, a previous act that create danger which violates the obligation to avoid results. On the other hand, business behavior indicates the quality assurance of products, which can be regarded as accepting the responsibility to protect the consumer. In the event that the operator intentionally produces and sells fake and inferior goods, it may not be deemed to accept protection for consumers due to the lack of active protection requirement, but it may have a product risk blocking obligation based on previous acts that create danger. The following special issues are worth noting: (1)The basis for the successor of the enterprise to bear the obligation to block product hazards is not the previous act that create danger, but the accepting protection; (2)The product blocking obligation of the outgoing enterprise will not be lifted due to its departure; (3)The main body of the pro-duct hazard blocking obligation should be limited to the enterprise's decision-makers or important management personnel; (4)The above theoretical conclusions apply not only to deliberate omissions, but also to negligent omissions; (5)The diversity of types of product hazard blocking obligations should be recognized.