Case Description

Zhao is the anchor of the A network platform. In June 2019, Li saw Zhao's live broadcast and liked Zhao very much. He recharged and purchased virtual currency on platform A, and purchased a large number of virtual gifts to reward Zhao. During the two years, Li's reward amount reached about 500000 yuan. After that, Li's wife, Zhou, unexpectedly discovered that Li was rewarding Zhao on the A-network platform. Zhou was angry and contacted the network platform and Zhao to request a refund. After being rejected, Zhou filed a lawsuit in court.

Lawyer Analysis

There are two different opinions on the behavior of rewarding network anchors in practice, one is that rewarding network anchors belongs to the consumption behavior of purchasing services, and the other is that it belongs to the gift behavior.

The court of first instance in this case held that the platform and the anchor did not set a threshold for users to watch live streaming, and users could freely watch live streaming programs without requiring them to give gifts or stipulating the amount that must be given. Therefore, the anchor and the platform obtained benefits directly from the user's gift behavior, rather than providing so-called paid services. Therefore, user rewards cannot be considered as consumer behavior, and should be recognized as gift behavior.

However, the court of second instance held that the user signed a user agreement with the network platform, registered as a user of the platform, and accepted various services provided by the platform according to the agreement. When watching live streaming, users enjoy value-added services using virtual props, and also obtain spiritual satisfaction. Therefore, users' reward for the anchor through recharging virtual props is not without gain, and does not have the single task and free nature of the gift contract. It should be an online consumption behavior, not a gift behavior.

The above two viewpoints are representative in practice. However, in such cases, no matter how the court determines the nature of the reward behavior, there are very few cases where the court supports the return of the reward amount in practice. The court generally holds that the party awarding the reward is an adult with full civil capacity. If the reward is determined to be a gift, then once the gift property has been transferred, the spouse who is the donor cannot claim revocation of the gift. For those who believe that reward behavior is a consumer behavior, the court believes that adults with full civil capacity have the right to choose the mode and type of consumption, and should also abide by the user agreement signed with the platform. Internet service providers are not obligated to review the marital status of the buyer of the reward props and whether they have obtained the consent of their spouse, and they are also unable to infer whether the user has infringed on the property disposition rights of others. Therefore, in practice, if there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the live broadcast content violates public order and good customs, or if the host knows that the giver is married and still has an improper relationship with him that violates public order and good customs, it is difficult for the spouse to claim the refund of the reward amount in practice to obtain the support of the court.

Of course, it is not without remedies for the property damage caused by one spouse's reward to the anchor. Article 1066 of the Civil Code stipulates that if one spouse commits an act of squandering their common property and harming the interests of their common property, the other spouse may request the court to divide their common property. According to this, the spouse can request the court to divide the couple's common property and stop the loss in a timely manner. In addition, Article 1092 of the Civil Code stipulates that if one of the spouses squanders their common property, when dividing the common property through divorce, the spouse may be given less or no share. Therefore, if one spouse uses the couple's common property to reward the anchor, and this behavior infringes on the couple's common property rights and causes a divorce dispute, and the reward party has a significant fault, the other party can claim to own more of the property based on this.

Team Profile

"Gaopeng · Law Popularization Weekly" is compiled by the Japanese business team of Gaopeng Law Firm and written by lawyer Chen Wenwei, the team leader. The Gaopeng Japan business team has been established for more than 20 years, and currently has team members in Gaopeng's Beijing head office, Shanghai branch office, and Tianjin branch office. Under the leadership of senior partners Chen Wenwei (Shanghai), Tan Yajun (Beijing), and Zhou Weibin (Tianjin), it provides integrated legal services to the outside world. The Gaopeng Japan business team has a number of lawyers who have studied abroad and worked in Japan, and are skilled in using Japanese to provide legal services. It has long served as a consultant to Canon, Hitachi, Toyota Motor, Epson, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan Trade Promotion Agency (JETRO), Fuji Film, Mitsubishi Electric, Tokyo Marine Nippon Motor Insurance, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Imperial, Meiji Fruit, Astera Many world-renowned enterprises, including Huatang, provide year-round legal advisory services, specializing in foreign investment, company mergers and acquisitions/restructuring, labor disputes, antitrust and unfair competition, product quality law, consumer rights protection law, and other legal services. Team lawyers have profound legal skills and sufficient practical experience.