Case summary
The defendant, Company X, is the operator of the livestreaming platform involved in this case. The plaintiff, Liu, was a registered user of the platform. Liu claimed that streamers on the platform had "induced" him to send repeated tips totaling 20,000 yuan ($2,786), which he alleged against his true intent, thereby infringing upon his lawful rights and interests. Liu further argued that the defendant had failed to provide proper supervision and had set up "inducive" mechanisms such as first- recharge rewards. On this basis, Liu requested a refund of 20,000 yuan from the defendant.

The defendant argued that a lawful internet service contract had been established between Liu and the platform. Liu's recharges and expenditures were made voluntarily and independently. Liu provided no evidence proving inducement. The defendant also asserted that the validity and stability of online service transactions, as well as the platform's legitimate rights and interests, are legally protected. Since the contract was neither void nor voidable under law, the plaintiff's claim for refund lacked any factual or legal basis.

Findings of facts
The Beijing Internet Court found that between Jan 31 and May 30, 2024, Liu made 279 separate recharges through their account, ranging from 1 yuan to 889 yuan each, totaling 13,932 yuan. Liu argued that a streamer had promised to add him on WeChat but failed to deliver the expected outcome. However, Liu did not submit relevant evidence in relation to this claim.

The platform maintained a tiered recharge system, offering entry effects and exclusive virtual gifts depending on the user's recharge level. Liu argued that such mechanism induced him to recharge and tip.

On the other hand, the defendant's platform displayed warnings during livestreamings and payments, urging users to spend rationally, avoid fraud, and prevent property loss. After large recharges, a pop-up would alert users about unusual spending and prompt them to set spending reminders. Users could also activate consumption limits via the livestream assistant.

Details of the judgment

The BIC held that by registering, logging in, and using the platform, the plaintiff had formed a legally valid internet service contract with the defendant.

The platform, as an internet livestreaming service provider, offered livestreaming functions to the public based on its qualifications, technical capabilities, and management resources.By providing users with differentiated services including virtual currency consumption, the platform  necessarily incurred human and material costs and was entitle to corresponding economic benefits.

After obtaining virtual currency through recharges, Liu tipped specific streamers by sending virtual gifts. Each recharge constituted a consumption act within the scope of the internet service contract formed with the platform. Aas a person with full civil capacity, the plaintiff recharged voluntarily, obtained spiritual satisfaction through tipping, and his intent was genuine and clear. Livestreaming, as an emerging internet industry characterized by openness and immediacy, allows users to independently decide whether to watch streams or tip streamers. Tipping is a voluntary, non-mandatory payment for intangible satisfaction.

The platform had provided corresponding livestreaming performances, entry effects, and related services, and repeatedly issued rational consumption reminders. Thus, the defendant fulfilled its contractual obligations and duty of notice. There was no inducement to recharge as alleged by the plaintiff, nor any statutory ground for contract revocation or invalidity.

Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff's request for  a  refund olacked both factual and legal basis and therefore would not be supported.

Tips from the judge

When users watch livestreaming on a platform, the platform provides them with internet services, thereby forming a a contractual relationship. For adults topping up and spending on the platform constitutes consumption within the scope of that contract. Each click of confirmation reflects their genuine intent, and accordingly, adults are obliged to take responsibility for their own decisions and may not freely revoke them. For tipping behavior made on the basis of true intent, the court will not order the platform to refund the amounts tipped.

Consumers are advised to live within their means, enjoy entertainment rationally, and exercise caution in digital spending. Platforms, for their part, should further strengthen supervision over livestreaming content and reinforce warnings regarding the risks of tipping, by removing illegal content, penalizing violating streamers,  promoting rational consumption, and fostering a sound and orderly livestreaming ecosystem.