Yangcheng Evening News reporter Dong Liu

  The 8-year-old Xiao Zhou, who lives in Zhuhai, watched the live broadcast and generously offered more than 19,000 yuan to "reward"; the 11-year-old Mai, who lives in Jiangmen, used his parents' mobile phone to go online to class and do homework, and secretly registered an account on the live broadcast platform without telling his parents. "Reward" more than 80,000 yuan to 5 anchors...

  In recent years, there have been cases in which users have "rewarded" and requested to return the "rewarded" money and sued to the court.

Some minors “rewarded” their parents and asked to return it, while some adults “rewarded” and regretted it.

So, can the webcast "reward" be refunded?

A reporter from the Yangcheng Evening News learned that the Guangzhou Internet Court has judged a number of similar cases and answered the above questions head-on.

  Someone regretted after throwing 450,000 yuan

  Yu Moumou is a user of a Guangzhou Internet Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a “Guangzhou Company”), which operates an Internet live broadcast platform, and Asha (a pseudonym) is the live broadcast publisher (commonly known as “anchor”) of this platform.

Yu Moumou started watching Asha's live broadcast in February 2017, and successively "rewarded" Asha.

As of April 2017, Yu Moumou spent more than 49,000 yuan in Asha’s live broadcast room.

On March 19, 2017, Yu Moumou became the person who "rewarded" Asha the most gifts that day, and was set by Asha as the channel manager of the live broadcast room.

On the 7th of the following month, Yu XX and Asha had a disagreement. Asha cancelled Yu XX's channel administrator authority. Yu XX believed that Asha's behavior violated the service contract formed by the two and constituted a breach of contract.

  Yu Moumou sued the Guangzhou Internet Court for a Guangzhou company, Asha and Asha’s brokerage company as the defendants, requesting the court to order the cancellation of his contract for gift consumption in the Asha live broadcast room, and requesting the defendants to refund a total of 49,000 various consumption funds. Yu Yuan.

  After the trial, the court held that because the "reward behavior" between Yu and Asha constitutes a gift contract relationship, the granting of channel administrator status to Yu by Asha constitutes a legal relationship in the commission contract, and the two are separate legal relationships. There is no corresponding relationship between the rights and obligations of the two contracts, and Yu Moumou cannot request the cancellation of the gift contract because he was revoked as the channel administrator by Asha.

Moreover, when both parties entered into the contract, there were no major misunderstandings, apparent unfairness, fraud, coercion and other statutory reasons for the cancellation of the contract. Therefore, Yu Moumou has no right to request the court to cancel the gift contract between him and Asha.

The Guangzhou Internet Court ruled to dismiss all of Yu's claims, and the judgment is now effective.

  "After the'reward', users request to return the'reward' money and sued the court from time to time." The judge of the Guangzhou Internet Court who handled the case said.

A reporter searched the China Judgment Document Network yesterday and found that such cases have continued to appear in recent years.

In the case of Qiu suing a technology company in Guangzhou for a network service contract dispute, Qiu said that between 2017 and 2019, he "rewarded" the female anchor of the defendant company a total of more than 800,000 yuan, which can be clearly proved by the Alipay bill. The amount of "reward" is 454,78246 yuan.

  Parents request to be returned after the child "rewarded"

  12-year-old Xiaohua (pseudonym), who lives in Henan, needs a mobile phone for his studies. The mobile phone number he uses is registered by his mother Mao, and the WeChat used is also registered by Mao.

During the summer vacation, Xiaohua guessed her mother's WeChat payment password, transferred the money in her mother's WeChat wallet to his own WeChat account without authorization, and consumed it after recharging on the live broadcast platform. The recharge amount was RMB 10,642.

After the mother learned, she applied for a refund to Guangzhou Huya Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Huya Company") and was rejected. She filed a lawsuit to the Guangzhou Internet Court and requested Huya Company to return the recharge of RMB 10,642.

  The Guangzhou Internet Court held that as Xiaohua’s guardian, Mao failed to keep important information such as his account and password, and failed to educate and control Xiaohua as necessary, which led to Xiaohua’s multiple times for nearly a month. The money in the WeChat wallet used by Mao was successfully transferred, and several recharges were made on the live broadcast platform. Xiaohua and Mao were at fault.

At the same time, Huya did not take measures as far as possible to ensure that the information provided by the account registrant is consistent with his identity, and to prevent minors from registering accounts and making large purchases as others on its platform. There are also certain faults.

In December 2019, the court comprehensively considered the degree of fault of both parties and other factors, and the final judgment determined that Huya Company returned to Xiaohua one third of the total recharge amount of 1,0752.2 yuan, or 3584.1 yuan.

  In another similar case, Xiao Wu, a minor who lives in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, registered an account on the Huya Live App without authorization to "reward" the anchor.

After her father learned about it, she sued for a refund on the live broadcast platform.

After the hearing of the Guangzhou Internet Court in September 2019, the first-instance judgment determined that Huya Company should compensate the minor Wu, one third of the total recharge amount of 47996.6 yuan, or 1,5998.9 yuan.

In addition, in Jiangmen, Zhuhai and other places in Guangdong, cases where minors watched the live broadcast "reward" without telling their parents, their parents sued for return.

 Judge reminded

  Minors over eight years old

  Unreasonable "reward" should be returned

  According to a law officer of the Guangzhou Internet Court, the parties involved in the act of "rewarding" through live webcast generally constitute two types of legal relationships:

  The first is to establish a network service contract between the user and the live broadcast platform.

Users watch live broadcasts and "reward" through the live broadcast platform. The live broadcast platform provides users with corresponding services, and a paid network service contract is established between the two.

  In the second type, a gift contract is generally established between the user and the live broadcaster.

However, when there is evidence that the live broadcast publisher must perform specific and clear contractual obligations before and after accepting the "reward", for example, the live broadcast publisher verbally stated during the live broadcast that when the user receives the "reward" to reach a certain amount, its If a specific dance is to be performed, the user and the live broadcaster may establish a service contract or other corresponding two-party contract (referring to a contract in which both parties assume mutual obligations and enjoy rights).

  "Clarifying the nature of the'reward' gift contract under normal circumstances is conducive to clarifying the rights and obligations of all parties in the Internet economy and balancing the interests of all parties," the judge said.

  According to experts, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, minors over the age of 16 who use their own labor income as their main source of income are regarded as persons with full capacity for civil conduct.

Minors over eight years of age are persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, and the execution of civil juristic acts shall be represented by their legal representatives or with the consent and ratification of their legal representatives; however, they may independently perform civil legal acts with pure benefits or with their age and intelligence. Corresponding civil legal acts.

Minors under the age of eight are incapable of civil conduct, and their legally-designated representatives will perform civil juristic acts on their behalf.

  In addition, Article 9 of the "Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Proper Trial of Civil Cases Involving the New Coronary Pneumonia Epidemic (2)" stipulates that Article 9 on the trial of contract cases stipulates: "Persons with limited civil capacity shall participate in the Internet without the consent of their guardians. The people’s court shall support the payment of money that is not suitable for the age and intelligence of paid games or online live broadcast platforms such as "rewarding."