43-year-old Zhen Zhen (pseudonym) died 12 years after getting married. When sorting out the relics of her husband Yang Hai (pseudonym), she found that since June 2018, Yang Hai began to watch live broadcasts on Douyin and recharge and reward until she died in June 2020. In the past two years, the husband has recharged more than 1,400 transactions on his wife Yang Hai, most of which are mainly 100 yuan and 1,000 yuan. The total amount is 25595,336 Douyin coins. He used "Douyin coins" to buy virtual gifts and rewarded "Douyin" platform anchors, including Chen Xin. The number of transactions of "Douyin coins" ranged from single digits to five digits, and the number of transactions reached 12,961 times. Among them, the total amount of virtual gifts given to Chen Xin was consumed 254,38,646 "Douyin coins". According to the rules of Douyin, you can get 10 "Dou coins" by rechargeing 1 yuan. In other words, Yang Hai’s reward amount was about 2.54 million yuan.
At the same time, Zhen Zhen found that Yang Hai had been chatting with Chen Xin on WeChat and meeting offline. The shopping records showed that he had successively purchased curling sticks , Mid-Autumn Mooncakes, Lipsticks, Mattresses, etc. on online shopping platforms, and the recipient was Chen Xin. In 2021, Zhen Zhen sued Chen Xin and the short video platform to . The People's Court of Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, and claimed that the defendant would return the reward amount.
Zhen Zhen believes that Yang Hai privately donated large amounts of property to others without Zhen Zhen’s consent, which damaged Zhen Zhen’s common right to the joint property of the couple, and Zhen Zhen has the right to deny it and request a return.
Chen Xin argued that Yang Hai's recharge and sending virtual props are cultural and entertainment services consumption behaviors, and the scope of daily family affairs covers necessary daily cultural consumption and entertainment. As an externally bona fide third party, there is reason to believe that one of the husband or wife is a common expression of intention between the husband and wife, and the other party shall not confront on the grounds of disagreement or not knowing. Chen Xin and Douyin both mentioned that Yang Hai belongs to a high-income group. His recharge and reward behaviors during his lifetime are his spiritual consumption behaviors and are required for daily life and do not exceed the scope of the right of one spouse to dispose of the joint property.
The court held that , as a provider of Internet services, is difficult for Douyin platform to review and judge whether Yang Hai's recharge and reward behavior infringes on the rights and interests of other co-owners, whether in terms of technology or human resources. Zhen Zhen also failed to provide evidence to prove that the Douyin platform knows or should know that Yang Hai has no right to dispose of the joint property of couples.
With the increasing improvement of the public's living standards, daily life needs should not only include material needs, but also spiritual needs. Yang Hai regards watching live broadcasts as one of the ways of entertainment and entertainment. He recharges and rewards on the Douyin platform for a long time and multiple times. Zhen Zhen did not find that recharges and rewards affect the normal life of the family during the period, so it should be determined that it is necessary for daily life and does not exceed the scope of the right of one spouse to dispose of the joint property, and should be entitled to dispose of.
The second reason for Zhen Zhen’s claim is that Yang Hai’s act of giving property to Chen Xin violates public order and good customs and harms the public interests of society. It should be deemed invalid according to law. She believes that Yang Hai and Chen Xin have been meeting offline for a long time and giving physical gifts. Yang Hai regards Chen Xin as his lover and has also given gifts to Chen Xin on festivals such as the Chinese Valentine's Day, which has exceeded the scope of normal relationships between men and women, rather than ordinary anchors and fans. The court held that Yang Hai's recharge behavior was targeted at the "Tik Tok" platform and had nothing to do with Chen Xin. The recharge itself did not violate the principle of public order and good customs of . Although the reward was targeted at Chen Xin, the evidence submitted by Zhen Zhen, such as Yang Hai unilaterally gave gifts to Chen Xin and sent ambiguous text messages, was not enough to prove that there was other improper relationship between Chen Hai and Yang Xin. Therefore, the behaviors of Yang Hai, Chen Xin and the Douyin platform did not violate the basic principles of civil law , , of public order and good customs, and did not affect the effectiveness of Yang Hai's recharge and reward behavior.
Finally, the court ruled that the contract involved in the case should be defined as an Internet service contract. The contract has been actually performed and there are no flaws in validity or the contract is invalid. It should be deemed to be legal and valid, and all of Zhen Zhen’s lawsuit requests were rejected.
The husband rewarded the anchor with nearly 300,000 yuan, and his wife wanted a refund. The court did not support it.
Married man Mr. Zhong has been watching live broadcasts on a live broadcast platform for a long time. In a year and a half, he recharged more than 1,100 times and gave a total reward of nearly 300,000 yuan to more than 370 anchors. Later, he was sued by his wife and demanded that all rewards be returned. Recently, Intermediate Court of Wuhu City, Anhui Province, made a final judgment and rejected all plaintiff's requests.
Mr. Zhong’s wife Ms. Jiang claimed that the live reward is a free gift to legal relationship , and the property of her husband’s recharge reward belongs to the joint property of the couple. Mr. Zhong frequently rewarded for one and a half years, and the cumulative reward amount was large, which obviously did not belong to the needs of family life and management. Moreover, in the process, in order to avoid being discovered by himself, Mr. Zhong also concealed it by editing false bank text messages, which was not authorized to dispose of the joint property of the couple. Therefore, he requested the court to confirm that the gift was invalid and ordered the live broadcast platform to return all the recharge rewards. The nature of the recharge reward of
is online consumption, not free gifts. Because the two parties have signed the "User Service Agreement" and the "Recharge Agreement", the live broadcast platform has also provided Mr. Zhong with live video broadcasting, video upload sharing, search, virtual community coins and other services according to the agreement. As a person with full civil capacity for , Mr. Zhong should be bound by his own agreement and be responsible for his own actions. There is no expression of intention to transfer property free of charge between the two parties, which does not conform to the legal characteristics of the gift contract.
The court held that the scope of daily life of a family is not limited to basic survival needs such as clothing, food, housing, and transportation, but also includes cultural and entertainment needs. With the continuous development and changes of my country's economy and society, people's family concepts and family lifestyles, it is also necessary to continue to change when determining whether it is a family's daily life expenditure.
Watch online live performances through mobile phones and recharge virtual community currency services, which does not exceed the scope of common cultural and entertainment services consumption among Chinese residents. According to the law, within this scope, the acts performed by one spouse on behalf of the family are deemed to be the common expression of intention of the spouse, and both spouses bear common joint and several liability for the act.
Specifically in this case, Mr. Zhong’s recharge behavior is independent every time. It cannot only look at the cumulative total. Each recharge behavior establishes a legal relationship with the live broadcast platform for network service contracts. Based on the family income stated by Mr. Zhong and Ms. Jiang, taking into account the recharge amount, recharge times, recharge time, and continuous cycle, the court believes that it is difficult to directly determine that Mr. Zhong’s recharge reward behavior will inevitably infringe on the right of disposing of the joint property of the couple, and the rights and interests of the live broadcast platform as a bona fide third party should be protected in accordance with the law. Moreover, after the live broadcast platform has provided corresponding network services in accordance with the contract, claiming that the recharge amount will cause significant unfairness in the rights and obligations of the parties and violate the principle of fairness.
Therefore, the court rejected Ms. Jiang's lawsuit request, and this judgment is the final judgment.
The husband rewarded the anchor with 900,000 yuan. Can his wife come back? The court ruled that
Wang registered an account on a live broadcast platform in 2016 and started watching online live broadcasts. Whenever the night is late and the people are quiet and the wife and children are sleeping soundly, he always likes to stay in Lu's live broadcast room. Until 2019, Wang gave Lu a virtual gift worth more than 900,000 yuan. After Wang's wife Zhang learned about this, she sued her husband Wang, along with the live broadcast platform and anchor Lu.
Zhang believes that Wang donated the joint property of the couple to the anchor without his consent, which obviously exceeded the needs of daily life and harmed the common property interests of the couple, which is an invalid behavior. He asked the defendant's live broadcast platform and anchor Lu to return the amount of recharge and rewards from his husband. The first instance Yangpu Court ruled to reject Zhang's lawsuit, but Zhang was dissatisfied and appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court. Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Second instance court review] online live broadcast is an emerging industry and has many benefits, especially providing an extremely good online promotion channel for products that are unsold due to the epidemic. But at the same time, various regulations in the industry are still incomplete and many problems continue to emerge. How the court makes a judgment not only affects the personal and family life of the rewarder, but also affects the entire live broadcast industry and even affects the social and economic order. The "Guiding Opinions on Properly Trialing Several Issues in the Problem of Civil Cases Related to the New Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic in accordance with the Law (II)" issued by the Supreme Court of in 2020 clearly states that if a person with limits civil capacity participates in the "reward" of the online live broadcast platform without the consent of his or her guardian, and the guardian requests the Internet service provider to return the amount, the people's court should support it. There are no clear legal provisions for adults like this case who involve with full civil capacity and to reward the anchor and request the refund after giving it to the anchor. The judgment in this case is a legal evaluation of the nature and effectiveness of online rewards that are not clearly defined by law. First of all, in terms of defining reward behavior, the reward behavior is evaluated as a factual behavior without legal significance and implicated behavior. The previous recharge behavior should be evaluated as a whole, that is, the recharge behavior of the audience when watching the live broadcast is a consumption behavior, and the reward behavior is the use of virtual props and does not have legal effect (different from the gift in the traditional sense). Secondly, when the audience uses the "couple and wife's property" to recharge and reward, it is necessary to make it clear that recharge and reward has become a normal life requirement, and it is not of course invalid. In the judgment of whether the reward constitutes a disciplinary action, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the frequency, amount, duration, period of reward, and whether the perpetrator violates public order and good customs. Finally, as a referee, it is necessary to point out that as a live broadcast platform, it should assume social responsibilities that are relatively equal to its profits, strictly manage live broadcast content, and set warnings or restrictions on the recharge amount and recharge times, advocate rational consumption, and focus on promoting the creation and cultivation of correct social values.
The wife rewarded the anchor with more than 400,000 yuan without telling her husband. The court ordered half of the return of
plaintiff and defendant Mo were husband and wife. Starting from January 2020, the defendant Mo signed the "Tik Tok User Registration Agreement" and the "Tik Tok Recharge Service Agreement" with the third-party Weibo Company, becoming a user of the Douyin platform and recharged a large amount of cash on the Douyin platform. Within 7 months, the defendant Mo will give the 4085,442 Douyin coins (equivalent to RMB 408,5442 million) they purchased in the live broadcast room of Douyin anchor, namely the defendant Ding, many times through the form of a virtual gift. rewards and gifts are distributed by the third-party Weibo company platform and the defendant Ding Moumou at a rate of 50%, and the income is 204,2721 million yuan respectively.
1. The defendant Mo signed a "Tik Tok User Registration Agreement" with the third party Weibo Company, and there is an Internet service contract relationship with the third party. However, according to the agreement, the defendant Mo's contractual obligation is only to bear traffic fees and Internet access fees. Mo's reward behavior is not a obligation that must be fulfilled as stipulated in the contract. It is Mo's voluntary behavior and is a single act. Therefore, the reward behavior involved in the case was Mo's gift to the anchor, not a consumption behavior of fulfilling the Internet service contract.
2. The reward fee involved in the case is more than 400,000 yuan, and it is the act of the defendant Mo during the period of his relationship with the plaintiff and his wife. It is a reward made by the plaintiff and the defendant Mo's husband and wife's joint property. There is no evidence in this case that the plaintiff knew about Mo's reward behavior during this period. Therefore, according to Article 1060 of the " Civil Code of the People's Republic of China": husband and wife have equal right to deal with common property. The use and disposal of the joint property by one spouse shall be carried out after obtaining the other party's consent unless otherwise agreed. The defendant Mo's gift in this case was punished by the plaintiff's property because of disposing of the plaintiff's litigation. The plaintiff's litigation has clearly expressed his disagreement with the defendant Mo's disposal of his property without authorization.Therefore, the defendant Mo's gift of the plaintiff's property violates the principle of fairness and the plaintiff's true intention. The plaintiff's request to the defendant Ding Moumou and the third-party Weibo Company to return half of the reward is in compliance with the law and this court supports it.
3. Since the defendant Ding and the third party Weibo Company each share 50% of the reward and gift money involved in the case of the defendant Mo, from the principle of fairness, the defendant Ding and the third party Weibo Company should return 102,136,500 yuan of reward and gift money to the plaintiff respectively.
In order to protect the legal civil rights and interests of the parties, in accordance with Articles 143 and 1060 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Dongpo District Court ruled that Dongpo District Court ruled that the defendant Ding Moumou and the third-party Weibo Company would return 102,136.05 million yuan of rewards and gifts to the plaintiff within ten days from the date of the effectiveness of this judgment.
[Judge's statement]
Because the case involves a high amount, the dispute is difficult to resolve. After several failed mediations, the presiding judge formulated a clear and well-organized trial outline for the two key points of the voluntary reward of adults and the joint property of the couple. During the trial, he rigorously and meticulously found out some facts of the case in accordance with the law and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff in accordance with the law. In recent years, various disputes have been increasing due to rewarding anchors. Among them, not only users sued the anchor, but also users’ parents sued the anchor. No matter which type, the loss is not only money, but also hurts the relationship between relatives. Therefore, I would like to remind the general public to consume rationally and to be cautious in rewarding anchors. Never "spend online and regret it offline."
A man rewarded the female anchor with 215,000 yuan during marriage. After the divorce, his wife sued the court
Ms. Zhang and Mr. Wu (pseudonym) got married in 2012. At the beginning of 2019, Ms. Zhang discovered that her husband Mr. Wu and Ms. Lin (pseudonym), a female anchor on a live broadcast platform, had an improper relationship between her husband Mr. Wu and Ms. Lin (pseudonym), who was a live broadcast platform. Therefore, the two divorced in February 2019. After the divorce, Ms. Zhang discovered that during the period of her relationship with Mr. Wu, Mr. Wu recharged several times on a certain platform and rewarded the anchor Ms. Lin in the form of "giving gifts".
Mr. Wu admitted that he recharged and rewarded the anchor Ms. Lin through a platform during marriage, and in addition, he also transferred 170,000 yuan to Ms. Lin in private. Mr. Wu promised to return the total of the above 215,000 yuan to Ms. Zhang, and was willing to cooperate with Ms. Zhang to find the anchor Ms. Lin to get the above money back. However, Mr. Wu did not return the above funds, and the anchor Ms. Lin also "lost contact".
Finally, the court ruled in the first instance that Mr. Wu and Ms. Lin must jointly return Ms. Zhang 170,000 yuan and corresponding interest. At the same time, Mr. Wu also needs to return Ms. Zhang 45,000 yuan and corresponding interest.
and above are from 21st Century Report, Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court, Dongpo Court, Shandong High Court, etc., and the pictures are from the Internet.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-