In a contract dispute between a minor user and a live broadcasting platform, the user said that without his mothers knowledge, he had transferred more than 500,000 yuan from his mothers multiple accounts to buy virtual currency of the platform and used it to reward the host. After the failure of requesting the return of all transactions, the user sued the platform to the court.
Recently, the Beijing Third Intermediate Peoples Court held that the live broadcasting platform did not suspend transactions in time when it received a letter from a lawyer sent by the mother of a minor user, and should return more than 40,000 yuan after that. At the same time, the users mother is unaware of her daughters continuous and large expenditure, which has constituted the acquiescence of her daughters trading behavior. Therefore, it is difficult for the court to support the users request for the return of all transactions during this period. Previously, the court of first instance rejected all the users claims.
User mothers take chat records as evidence, and the court of first instance said it was difficult to prove that their mothers did not know.
At the end of 2015, Zheng Han, a 15-year-old pseudonym, went to Canada to study alone. During this period, her mother Liu Juan (pseudonym) paid for her living expenses and tuition fees. Shortly afterwards, she downloaded Yingke APP and authenticated it with her mother Liu Juans information, and began to play live. In April 2016, mother Liu Juan discovered the large consumption of virtual coins purchased by Zheng Han from the live broadcast platform by querying the transaction records of Alipay accounts. Later, Liu Juan revised the Alipay code, unbundled bank cards and other operations, and went to Canada to study in April 13, 2016 to supervise her daughters learning and life. On May 26, Liu Juan sent a lawyers letter to the video live broadcasting platform. From April 1, 2017, Zheng Hans live broadcasting account still had a record of 49120 yuan recharge transaction.
Liu Juan provided a chat record with Zheng Han to prove that the behavior of recharging consumption was the daughters behavior, but Beijing Mellywood Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mellywood Company), the operating company of the live video platform, disapproved of the chat record, believing that the two were mother-daughter relationships and could not judge who actually used it. Although both parties agreed on the amount of the transaction, the company insisted that the trader was not Zheng Han.
On October 9, 2016, Zheng Han filed a lawsuit in the Peoples Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing, demanding that the company return the transaction amount and the corresponding interest. The court of first instance held that both the Yingke account and the account recharged from the account involved were owned by Liu Juan, and that the chat records of Liu Juan and Zheng Han alone were not enough to prove that Zheng Han had login and recharged without Liu Juans knowledge. In September 2017, the court of first instance rejected Zheng Hans application. After the first trial, the company shut down the financial functions of the Yingge account, including recharge.
After verification by the Court of Second Instance, from January 27, 2016 to April 1, 2017, Liu Juans four accounts and the company had 863 Yingger virtual currency recharge transactions, totaling 524509 yuan, the maximum amount of a single transaction was 19998 yuan. Part of the money in the three accounts comes from Liu Juans student account for Zheng Hans study abroad living in the Bank of Canada.
Second Instance: Platform fails to fulfill the responsibility of network consumer service providers and should return part of the transaction money.
In the second trial, Zheng Han introduced that his reward target was mainly a boy who looked good and spoke well. In order to avoid his mothers inquiry, Zheng Han deleted the relevant transaction records and text messages. If his mother found that he had a large amount of consumer behavior, he said he had purchased daily necessities.
On appeal, Zheng Han again emphasized that the Yingke account involved in the case was authenticated by using the identity information of his mother without the knowledge of his mother, Liu Juan, but he was the actual user of the account. As a minor, its large recharge behavior is not compatible with its age and intelligence, and the company should return the money it purchased for virtual money.
The company argues that Liu Juan is the real name certification information of the Yingke account in the case, and the payment information also shows Liu Juans bank account. It has reason to believe that Liu Juan is the owner of the Yingke account in the case. Liu Juan himself was the user of the account when the Yingke virtual currency transaction took place.
According to the court of second instance, the registration and use of the account of the client involved in the case, combined with other evidence, is sufficient to prove that Zheng Han is the registrant and user of the account involved. From February 2016 to April 1, 2017, Zheng Han was 15 to 16 years old and belonged to a person with limited capacity. According to the consumption records on the screen, Zheng Han spent 387,755 yuan in a short period of two months, the highest consumption in a day reached more than 50,000 yuan, which has far exceeded the normal consumption level of a minor without income. Faced with numerous, continuous, large and unreasonable financial expenditures, Liu Juan, as Zheng Hans legal agent and owner of the money, has not fulfilled the necessary obligation of careful verification. The court held that Liu Juans laissez-faire attitude towards Zheng Hans large-scale online trading consumption at this stage has constituted the acquiescence of Zheng Hans trading behavior. Therefore, it is difficult for the court to support Zheng Hans request for the return of transactions during this period.
At the same time, the court held that the company was responsible for the safety of the transactions involving online consumption. After Liu Juans lawyer letter disclosed the abnormal situation of the account involved, as a provider of online consumer services and a party to the online consumer contract, the company should suspend the transaction in time to verify the real identity of the counterparty. However, the company failed to take relevant measures until the court of first instance ruled that the company closed the financial function of the accounts involved. Therefore, the company failed to fulfil its responsibility as an online consumer service provider, allowing the risk of online consumer transactions with minors to occur. Therefore, the online consumption contract at this stage should be considered invalid, and the Honeywood Company has the obligation to return Zheng Hans transaction money.
The court of second instance finally decided that the company returned more than 49,000 yuan to Zheng Han after the judgment came into effect, and rejected Zheng Hans other claims.
Source: Shi Jianle_NBJ11331, Responsible Editor of Southern Metropolitan Daily