Jimu News Reporter Cao Xuejiao
htmlOn April 7, the Supreme People's Court drafted and released the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II) (Draft for Comments)" based on trial practice. Article 5 of the draft for comments mentions the issue of handling live streaming rewards for minors and couples.How to determine that parents are not aware of their underage children’s tips on live streaming platforms? Under what circumstances can one spouse reward the anchor and the other party recover the money? In this regard, some lawyers said that in the actual operation process, the former can comprehensively prove that the tipper is a minor through the consistency of the party's statement and the actual situation, the frequency of account usage, account chat records, etc. As for the latter, if one spouse's reward behavior exceeds the right to dispose of the joint property of the couple, or the anchor he or she rewards is obscene or pornographic, the other spouse can claim to recover the reward money.
Parents of children under the age of eight who reward anchors can recover the money
Article 5 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II) (Draft for Comments)" states that children under eight years old If a minor engages in rewarding behavior through an online live broadcast platform, and his legal representative claims that the civil legal action is invalid and requests the return of the reward money, the people's court should support it in accordance with the law. Minors who are over eight years old and under sixteen years old, or who are over sixteen years old and cannot rely on their own labor income as the main source of living, use the online live broadcast platform to perform acts that are not suitable for their age, intelligence and mental health status without the consent of their legal representatives. If the legal representative does not ratify the tipping behavior and claims that the civil legal action is invalid and requests the online live broadcast platform to return the reward money, the people's court should support it in accordance with the law.
Jimu News reporters noticed that as early as 2020, the "Notice on Strengthening the Management of Online Show Live Broadcasts and E-commerce Live Broadcasts" issued by the State Administration of Radio and Television mentioned that users who have not registered under the real-name system cannot reward, and underage users No rewards are allowed. It is necessary to ensure that real-name requirements are implemented through real-name verification, facial recognition, manual review and other measures, and the reward function of underage users is prohibited.
Regarding this, Zhu Xue, a lawyer at Beijing Strategy (Nanjing) Law Firm, said that the draft is not a formally issued legal interpretation and does not have legal effect yet. This consultation draft is the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation of the marriage and family section of the Civil Code. The legal provisions of the marriage and family section have already come into effect. In practice, there are also many cases that adopt the same views as the above-mentioned consultation draft.
However, in recent years, the issue of blind rewards for minors watching online live broadcasts has still occurred from time to time. In past cases, determining whether minor parents knew about their children's rewards on online live broadcast platforms was one of the key points and difficulties in the cases.
Regarding this, Zhu Xue said that minors used their parents’ identity information to register accounts for rewards. From the appearance, it seems that adults are making rewards. If parents want to claim invalid, they must prove that the perpetrators of the behavior are minors. In practical cases, minors using the main system can be comprehensively proved through the consistency between the parties’ statements and the actual situation, the consistency between the time and frequency of account use and the minor’s schedule, and the text, voice and other records left during the use of the account. If it cannot be proved, the loss of the reward can only be borne by the parents.
If one spouse rewards a host with vulgar content, the other spouse may claim that it is invalid.
In addition to the issue of rewards for minors, the above-mentioned consultation draft also mentions the issue of how to handle the payment for live streaming rewards from one spouse. The document shows that one spouse engaged in tipping behavior through an online live broadcast platform, and there was evidence that the live broadcast content contained obscene, pornographic and other vulgar information to induce users to tip. The other party claimed that the civil legal action was invalid and requested the online live broadcast platform to return the reward money. , the people's court should support it in accordance with the law.If one spouse gives a reward that obviously exceeds the general consumption level of the family without the consent of the other spouse, seriously damaging the interests of the joint property of the spouses, the other party requests the division of the common property during the marriage on the grounds that the other party has squandered the joint property of the spouses, or during the divorce When dividing the joint property of husband and wife, if the reward party is given a small share or no share, the People's Court shall support it in accordance with the law.
Jimu News reporter noticed that in past cases tried by the court, one spouse secretly rewarded the anchor, but was discovered by the other spouse and sued to recover part of the money. There were also cases where the money could not be recovered after the lawsuit was filed. In which case was the reward given? Can money be recovered, but under what circumstances cannot it be recovered?
In this regard, Zhu Xue said that whether the reward money can be recovered depends on two points. First, whether the reward behavior exceeds the spouse’s right to dispose of the joint property of the couple; second, as mentioned in the above solicitation draft, the reward Whether the behavior itself violates public order and good morals. If one spouse's reward exceeds the scope of the couple's common property disposal rights and is an unauthorized disposal, the reward may be deemed invalid. As for whether the right of disposal has been exceeded, in specific cases, the court will generally consider the circumstances of the case comprehensively, including the joint property status of the husband and wife, the amount of rewards, the frequency, cycle, time, the platform’s prompting obligation, and the average household consumption level, etc. category. If a host uses sexual inducements or obscene information to induce viewers to tip during a live broadcast, the tipping behavior will be deemed to violate the basic principles of public order and good morals, and the legal action will be invalid, and the tipping property must be returned.
"In practice, if you want to file a lawsuit against a reward that violates public order and good customs, you need to fix the evidence before the lawsuit." Zhu Xue said.
(Source: Jimu News)
