Today, with the rapid development of the Internet, watching online live broadcasts has become an emerging way of entertainment for people. It is not uncommon for "big brother" to frantically buy gifts for female anchors, but this has also caused many conflicts and disputes.
Brief introduction to the case
In May 2023, the plaintiff Wang met the female anchor, the defendant Xiaoli (pseudonym), through the Douyin app. After the two parties exchanged WeChat messages, Wang began to pursue Xiaoli. From May to July 2023, Wang gave gifts to Xiaoli in her Douyin live broadcast room many times and transferred money to Xiaoli through WeChat and Alipay. Wang believed that the money he paid to Xiaoli was based on the premise of dating, but now that a relationship between boyfriend and girlfriend has not been established, the money he gave as gifts and the money transferred should be returned. After negotiating with Xiaoli, Xiaoli Li was unwilling to return the money, so Wang sued the court and requested that Xiao Li be ordered to return the money. During the trial of the
case, Xiaoli argued that Wang was pursuing her intentionally, but she and Wang had not reached any agreement on paying money and establishing a relationship. Wang’s gift to express his love was not accompanied by any obligation. Conditional gift. The live broadcast is of a performance and profit-making nature. The gifts given by Wang are settled by the Douyin platform before she gets part of the proceeds. Wang is over 18 years old and has full capacity for civil conduct. His behavior of exchanging gifts is completely voluntary. Wang needs to bear responsibility for his independent behavior.
The court held that
the plaintiff Wang recharged the Douyin app and gave gifts to the defendant Xiaoli’s live broadcast room. The actual effector and direct profiteer of his reward behavior were the platform. Xiaoli did not directly obtain the income. Therefore, the anchor and the Users do not directly create legal relationships during the live interaction process. Users' "rewards" should be evaluated as a consumption behavior of platform network services, rather than a gift to the anchor. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Wang should bear corresponding civil liability for his actions. The court did not support Wang’s request to return the reward money.
As for Wang, in the process of pursuing Xiaoli, he sent a small amount or a transfer with special meaning to Xiaoli. The donor transferred money to the recipient to express the love he was pursuing. This was an autonomous act and complied with the gift contract. It is characterized by service and gratuitousness, and it is a free disposal of its property, which should be evaluated as a gift act. Wang claimed that he donated money on the condition that the two parties established a relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend. According to relevant legal provisions, gifts can be accompanied by obligations, and the recipient should perform the obligations as agreed. However, Wang did not provide evidence to confirm the fact that he and Xiaoli had reached an agreement on the conditional gift. Moreover, whether to establish a romantic relationship was not within the scope of rights and obligations regulated by the law, so the court did not support Wang's claim.
The above case is a conflict and dispute caused by rewarding and pursuing a female anchor. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, from the perspective of maintaining an honest and trustworthy market order, if a consumer wants to exercise the right to cancel a consumer behavior, the corresponding conditions must be met, that is, the decision must be made under circumstances of fraud, coercion, major misunderstanding, and fairness. For civil legal acts, the court will not support revocation actions that do not meet the conditions for the right to revocation.
At the same time, whether to establish a love relationship is different from whether to establish a marriage relationship. The former is an emotional agreement between the parties, belongs to an extra-legal space, and is an act without legal significance, while the latter is a civil legal fact, and the obligations that can be attached to the gift contract should be It belongs to the category of adjustable civil legal relationships. Therefore, a transfer based on a romantic relationship does not constitute a conditional gift. If the donor claims to revoke the gift based on the lack of a romantic relationship as a condition of revocation, it does not comply with Article 663 of the Civil Code. stipulation, the court did not support it.
Online live broadcasts have enriched people’s daily lives and also brought temptations and risks. In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and disputes, the judge hereby reminds users that users should consume rationally while watching live broadcasts and purchase props and gifts on online platforms with caution. , do not reward enthusiastically or consume blindly to avoid losses. Practitioners in the live broadcast industry should also abide by the relevant provisions of the "Code of Conduct for Online Anchors", strengthen moral restraints, interact civilly, not induce users to make large rewards, and jointly build a healthy and harmonious online ecological environment.
Source: Balance Sunshine
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-