Abstract: The existing institutional supply has failed to make provisions for the assumption of liability in civil public interest litigation that are different from those in civil private interest litigation. In judicial practice, the system of liability assumption in civil private interest litigation is often referred to, and apologies are applied to civil public interest litigation. In civil public interest litigation, although the application of apology can help improve governance effectiveness and reduce regulatory costs, it is more of a tool for removing harmful information, which is different from its function of compensating for the mental damage of the infringed party in private interest litigation. In terms of application effect, the difficulty of compulsory enforcement leads to the formal meaning of apology in civil public interest litigation being greater than its substantive meaning, with a prominent hollowing out color. To dispel doubts about the reasonable nature of apologies, it is necessary to restore them from legal responsibility to moral responsibility, and explore new ways of assuming responsibility such as participating in public welfare activities to compensate for the harm caused by infringers to the public interest.