Recently, Beijing Internet Court issued the White Paper on the Judicial Protection of Minors on the Internet. From June 2022 to May 2023, the hospital accepted 143 civil disputes involving minors. Internet cases involving minors are mainly caused by recharging rewards, online shopping, online speech, etc., reflecting the active behavior of minors using the Internet.
In the case of recharge and reward, most of them claim that the recharge behavior of minors is invalid and demand to return the recharge money. Among them, the average bid amount of game recharge cases is 25,622.6 yuan, the average bid amount of live broadcast reward cases is 62,877.7 yuan, and there are 4 cases involving more than 100,000 yuan in recharge reward cases, accounting for nearly 10% of such cases.
The White Paper shows that the phenomenon of infringement of minors’ personality rights continues to grow, and the number of related cases has increased by 111% in the past year. When minors are infringed, the infringement of their personality rights is mainly the infringement of reputation rights, and may also involve portrait rights, privacy rights, personal information rights and so on.
Case 1:
Adults should bear legal responsibility for cyber violence against minors due to emotional disputes.
[Basic case]
There is an emotional dispute between A and the defendant C. In order to vent his emotions, C used his Weibo account to publish a series of Weibo, attacking A and A’s minor daughters, B 1 and B 2, one of which disclosed the portrait of B 1; In addition, C also sent dozens of text messages to insult A and B 1 and B 2. The attacks and insults sent by C include insulting comments on B’s appearance and "B’s 2 children born out of wedlock", "B’s 2 is not qualified to attend a certain school" and "B’s 2 bribed a professor". A thought that the defendant C had maliciously insulted and slandered B-1 and B-2 on the Weibo, which led to a marked decrease in his social evaluation, brought great troubles to his daughter’s life and study, caused irreparable mental damage, and seriously infringed on the reputation rights of B-1, B-2 and A-2, so he asked C to apologize and compensate for mental losses.
[court decision]
After trial, the court held that in this case, the blog post of defendant C directly mentioned the names of B 1 and B 2, which had specific directionality. C made public the portrait photo of B-1 and used insulting words, which not only infringed on B-1′ s portrait right, but also devalued B-1′ s personal dignity and infringed on B-1′ s reputation right. At the same time, there are still some negative remarks about the schooling situation of a certain student in the article. According to the evidence in the case, the remarks have no factual basis, and they are rumors and slanders divorced from the factual basis. Because this remark is enough to reduce the social evaluation of plaintiff B 2, it also constitutes an infringement of plaintiff B 2′ s reputation right. The court ruled that the defendant C should apologize to B 1 and B 2 and compensate for the mental loss.
After the judgment of first instance was made, neither party filed an appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
[Typical meaning]
On the one hand, the physiology and psychology of minors are still in the development stage and immature, which is easily influenced by external evaluation; On the other hand, most of the social contacts of minors are minors, and their ability to identify and screen information is low, so they are easily misled and make negative comments on others based on one-sided information. Compared with adults, the features of appearance can easily have a negative impact on minors’ social environment, and may even lead to school bullying and cyber violence, which cannot be ignored. This case is a case that fully embodies the principle of "special and priority" protection for minors in the dispute over personality rights.
Case 2:
Publishing videos of minors seeking medical treatment without consent constitutes infringement by medical institutions and related personnel.
[Basic case]
Plaintiff A was accompanied by relatives to a pediatric clinic in a hospital, and was treated by chief physician B. Without the consent of A and his guardian, a hospital filmed and edited A’s consultation process into a video for public release in a short video platform account with B as the real name registration subject. The plaintiff’s guardian thinks that the theme of the short video involved in the case is "When will the child get well? I have to ask my parents". The video content reveals the plaintiff’s illness, and the main content is edited to show the plaintiff’s "faults" and "bad habits" when seeing a doctor. The amount of praise and comments is very high. At the same time, combined with the negative comments of the video, I think that a hospital and B have violated the plaintiff’s right to privacy, portrait and reputation, and asked B and a hospital.
[court decision]
After trial, the court held that the video involved was shot and edited by a hospital, and the video content was the process of seeing the plaintiff in the consulting room, and B cooperated to complete the relevant shooting, while the video involved was published in a short video account registered with B’s real name and with B’s name as a nickname and portrait as the avatar. Objectively, the public watching the video released by the account involved can also bring certain traffic, attention and other benefits to B. At the same time, combined with the previous operation of the video account, it is determined that a hospital and B have adopted the way of division of labor and cooperation. Without the plaintiff’s permission, B and a hospital filmed and publicly released the video involved in the case on the network short video platform, and publicized the plaintiff’s portrait, which constituted an infringement on A’s portrait right. At the same time, the video content involved in the case has a certain tendency after editing, indicating that the plaintiff has symptoms including behavior habits, which will cause negative comments on the plaintiff to a certain extent and constitute an infringement on the plaintiff’s reputation. Generally speaking, most patients don’t want to disclose their medical treatment process and symptoms, and the content of medical treatment has certain privacy, which should belong to personal privacy. However, a certain hospital and a certain hospital disclose the plaintiff’s medical information in the form of video on the Internet, which constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff’s privacy. The court ruled that the defendant B and a hospital jointly bear the responsibilities of apologizing, compensating for mental losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights. A technology company has fulfilled its obligations as a network service provider in the process of operating a short video platform, and does not assume responsibility.
After the judgment of the first instance was made, none of the parties appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
[Typical meaning]
In the process of spreading knowledge through short videos, medical institutions or employees should pay special attention not to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, especially minors. While innovating the diagnosis and treatment mode, hospitals and doctors should take the initiative to assume the social responsibility of protecting the healthy growth of minors, strictly fulfill the professional requirements of keeping patients confidential, and strictly abide by the legal bottom line to avoid irreparable trauma to minors’ bodies and minds due to improper behavior.
Case 3:
Neighborhood disputes should not affect the healthy growth of children.
[Basic case]
When B took a minor child, A 1, in the community, he had an argument with the residents of the neighborhood next door because of property management, and the dispute was recorded by the defendant Ding. In the video, B’s physical characteristics are clear, and the minor A’s face is clear without wearing a mask. Ding released the above video to others without the permission of the plaintiff. The defendant, C, saw the edited and processed video (including negative comments on A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, A’s father, a’s father, a’s father, because of a similar property dispute, and did not verify that the video would be reprinted to multiple online platforms. Party A 1, Party A 2 and Party B think that the actions of Party D and Party C constitute an infringement on the right of portrait and reputation of Party A 1 and Party B, which constitutes an infringement on the right of reputation of Party A 2. Therefore, Party D and Party C are required to apologize to the three plaintiffs and compensate for mental and economic losses.
[Referee’s result]
After trial, the court held that the video involved was shot by Ding and spread to others. The video content was a dispute between B and his neighbors in the community. However, the video does not reflect the objective facts, mainly for the derogatory of B. At the same time, in this video, the face of a son of B, A, 1, is not covered and is completely exposed in the controversial video; B’s physical characteristics are clear, so Ding’s behavior constitutes an infringement of A’s and B’s portrait rights; The content of the video also led to the reduction of social evaluation of B, which constituted an infringement of B’s reputation. On the network platform, C released another processed video with negative comments on A-2, which not only infringed on A-1′ s portrait right, B-1′ s portrait right and reputation right, but also infringed on A-2′ s reputation right. The court ruled that Ding Mou publicly apologized to B Mou and A Mou 1 and compensated for the losses; C apologized to the three plaintiffs and compensated for the losses.
After the judgment of the first instance was made, none of the parties appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
[Typical meaning]
In recent years, neighborhood disputes have developed from offline to online, resulting in increasing cases of cyber infringement and even cyber violence. Many cases also involve improper disclosure of portraits and personal information of minors. This case is such a typical case. This case makes it clear that disputes should be handled in a reasonable way, especially not to spread portraits of minors on the Internet without consent. Minors are still in the process of physical and mental development. On the one hand, adults should try to avoid adverse effects on minors when dealing with disputes in their lives. On the other hand, we should pay special attention to the expanding and persistent harm that the network communication environment may cause to minors.
Case 4:
Platforms that pay too much attention to or browse minors’ related content have the right to ban accounts and terminate services.
[Basic case]
Plaintiff A registered to use a short video platform operated by the defendant. During the use period, the account was permanently banned by the defendant on the grounds of "suspected violation of community conventions, involving excessive attention or browsing related content of minors". A believes that he just likes to watch dance videos, and has not over-browsed related content involving minors. It is normal to use the account involved to browse and like related videos, and all the videos are recommended by the system. As a platform operator, the defendant banned the account involved and the corresponding mobile phone device login rights. unreasonable. A believes that the defendant’s behavior of blocking the account involved and the corresponding mobile phone equipment for no reason constitutes a breach of contract, and he appealed to the court to demand the lifting of the measures against the plaintiff’s account.
[court decision]
After trial, the court held that the defendant’s platform service agreement, self-discipline convention and the platform’s security center clearly stipulated that "any behavior and content that harms minors’ physical and mental health and legitimate rights and interests are prohibited, including pornographic and vulgar content involving minors, excessive consumption of minors, prohibiting the dissemination of bad values, spreading soft pornographic, vulgar or sexually suggestive, sexually suggestive and sexually suggestive content, and displaying vulgarity, kitsch, vulgar taste and vulgar culture". "Paying too much attention to and browsing minors’ related content" includes "being active in the comment area of minors’ videos, frequently publishing vulgar pornographic remarks, expressing love for children but teasing words" and other behaviors. In this case, when the plaintiff registered as a member, he signed a service agreement with the defendant. As the supplementary content of this agreement, the agreements on other functions of the platform have the same legal effect as this agreement. The trial found that the plaintiff, A, had posted a large number of comments containing verbal teasing, vulgar taste and some pornographic expressions under a number of videos involving minors. After technical identification, the defendant found that the plaintiff’s account involved was a risk user involved in the "child care project". After manual review by the "child care project" queue, it was judged that the plaintiff’s account involved was excessively concerned about or browsed the relevant content of minors, which violated the community self-discipline convention and was not improper.
In addition, the service agreement signed by the original defendant and the defendant stipulates that the platform has the right to independently judge and take measures such as restricting part or all of the functions of the account until the service is terminated and the account is permanently closed. In this case, the account involved in the case was punished by the platform three times for "excessively paying attention to or browsing the related content of minors", and the defendant punished it several times. However, after the account involved was unsealed, the plaintiff continued to post a large number of comments containing vulgar taste and vulgar culture under the video of minors, and the breach of contract was serious. The measures taken by the defendant to stop providing services and permanently close the account involved did not exceed the necessary limit. At the same time, the defendant took the above measures to prevent the plaintiff from continuing to commit illegal acts after changing the account, better protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors and their physical and mental health, and purify the cyberspace environment. To sum up, the defendant took a legal contract to ban the account involved. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was rejected.
After the judgment of first instance was made, neither party filed an appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
[Typical meaning]
The judgment in this case reflects the people’s court’s support for the online platform to implement the legal and policy requirements for the protection of minors and strengthen the platform management, and fully reflects the need to firmly establish the concept of juvenile justice in the new era, adhere to the principle of being most beneficial to minors, and implement the concept of special and priority protection in every case to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of minors.
Case 5:
The online platform allows real-name authentication for minors to recharge and reward, and it should be considered that there is a major fault.
[Basic case]
The plaintiff, A, was 17 years old. During the epidemic from February 2020 to March 2020, A made a large amount of recharge to a game software operated by a defendant technology company through Alipay account, with a total amount of more than 610,000 yuan. The plaintiff believes that the account number recharged by the plaintiff has been authenticated by binding the ID card, and the defendant failed to take restrictive measures in time, which made the plaintiff recharge in a large amount within one month, which was obviously inconsistent with his age and intelligence, and without the consent and ratification of his legal representative, which should be an invalid civil legal act. The plaintiff appealed to the court, demanding that the defendant return all the top-up money of more than 610,000 yuan and interest of more than 30,000 yuan to the plaintiff.
[court decision]
During the court hearing, A himself appeared in court online to explain the situation and proved that the recharge was really implemented by himself. Through an in-depth understanding of the operating mechanism of the game platform, the court found that the game involved had lucky attributes and was attractive to minors. At the same time, when the recharge behavior involved occurred, the plaintiff had uploaded real identity documents for real-name authentication at the request of the system. It can be seen that the defendant has the ability to know that the other party to the contract is a minor, and it lacks the basis to use the technical measures that are not online to limit the recharge as a defense. At the same time, the plaintiff’s account was recharged frequently and in a short period of time, so the defendant, as a network service provider, should have paid more attention to it. However, the defendant failed to review and restrict the consumption of the account when the account was registered as a minor in real name, nor did he claim ratification from his guardian, and continued to provide a large amount of recharge service for minors. The defendant was mainly responsible for the occurrence of the recharge behavior involved. The plaintiff’s guardian neglected the management of the plaintiff, lacked safety awareness of personal property, and was also at fault. The court ruled that the defendant returned the plaintiff’s recharge of 609,000 yuan within 10 days after this judgment came into effect, and rejected the plaintiff’s other claims.
After the judgment of the first instance was made, the defendant filed an appeal. During the second instance, the two parties reached a settlement and the case was settled through mediation in the second instance.
[Typical meaning]
This case is a typical case in which minors indulge in online games and charge a large amount of money. Minors are the "susceptible group" of online games. In recent years, there are more and more disputes over minors’ indulging in "casual games" with certain luck and making large amounts of recharge. If the online game platform should know or know that the counterparty is a minor, but still fails to implement the protection measures for minors and take effective measures to limit the large consumption of minors on the grounds of technical restrictions, the court finds that the online game platform has a major fault and should return the recharge money according to law. This case establishes a clear orientation of protecting minors according to law, and urges the online game platform to effectively implement the consumption restriction measures for minors; At the same time, it is also clear that parents are responsible for supervising and guiding minors’ internet use behavior and preventing minors’ internet addiction, which is conducive to promoting parents to effectively implement their legal obligations of family education.
Case 6:
In the case of recharging and rewarding, the minor party should give evidence actively.
[Basic case]
A minor claims that from November to December, 2021, he used his father’s account to recharge more than 10,000 yuan in a short video platform operated by a technology company of the defendant to reward the anchor. A certain 1 thought that A was a minor, and his reward behavior was not suitable for his age and intelligence. He sued the court as a legal agent and asked the company to return the reward money. During the trial, a technology company seized the barrage sent by the account when the reward behavior occurred, the content of the account, the object of praise, etc., arguing that from the use of the account, it was inconsistent with the behavior pattern of minors and could not prove that the actual user of the account was A. After the court repeatedly explained to A’s father, supplemented the relevant evidence of minors’ recharge and coordinated the minors’ appearance in court, A did not supplement the evidence, and A did not appear in court to explain.
[Referee’s result]
The court held through trial that in this case, although the plaintiff claimed that the account involved was used by A, the real-name authentication subject of the account involved was A 1, which was not consistent with the behavior pattern of minors in terms of the account content concerned and the anchor type rewarded. In the case of repeated explanations by the court, the plaintiff did not actively provide evidence, and the existing evidence could not prove that the actual user of the account was A, so the plaintiff should bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence. The court ruled that all the plaintiff’s claims were rejected.
After the judgment of first instance was made, neither party filed an appeal, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
[Typical meaning]
In cases involving minors’ recharge and reward, many minors mostly use adult accounts to register and pay through adult accounts. In the case, it is necessary to confirm that the recharge and reward behavior is really implemented by minors. It is clear in this case that the party who carries out the act of recharging and rewarding minors should bear the burden of proof that the act is a minor. "It is better to take precautions before it happens". Recovering minors’ top-up rewards through litigation or other means requires corresponding evidence support. Parents should fundamentally strengthen education and care for minors, guide minors to use the Internet scientifically, and prevent addiction. Parents should also improve their safety awareness, protect their payment passwords, fully fulfill their guardianship responsibilities, and create a good growth environment for minors.
Case 7:
Minors open online shops, courts send judicial advice, and promote e-commerce platforms to strengthen management.
[Basic case]
Defendant B, a minor, opened a shop on an e-commerce platform operated by a technology company, sold customized star albums to dozens of people, and made virtual delivery on the platform. A few months later, the defendant actually delivered the goods. After receiving the goods, the plaintiff found that the goods did not match the description and proofing. The plaintiff believes that the products sold by the defendant are inconsistent with the propaganda and should bear corresponding responsibilities according to law. As a platform operator, the e-commerce platform should review and supervise the qualifications of the sellers, but it has not done its duty. Dozens of buyers appealed to the court, requesting the defendant B to refund the purchase money, and an e-commerce company was jointly and severally liable for compensation.
[Trial situation]
During the trial, it was found that the defendant in this case was under the age of 18, and he opened a shop on the e-commerce platform and sold a large number of similar goods, which caused disputes, which was not suitable for his identity, age and economic situation. During the trial of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant’s guardian reached a settlement under the auspices of the court. After the case was concluded, the court sent judicial advice to the defendant, a technology company operating the e-commerce platform, on the problems found during the trial, especially pointing out its problems in reviewing and prompting minors to open online stores. The company replied that it would strengthen the review and prompt of minors who have reached the age of 16 as platform operators, strengthen daily management, and further improve the delivery prompt and confirmation functions.
[Typical meaning]
As "Internet aborigines", it is increasingly common for minors to participate in Internet transactions as consumers, and the relevant laws and regulations are relatively perfect. However, the behavior of minors opening shops and selling goods on the platform can not be ignored. This case fully embodies the extension of the court’s trial function in the process of handling juvenile internet-related cases. On the one hand, actively promote reconciliation and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of minors; On the other hand, we will give judicial advice to the operators of e-commerce platforms for their lack of mechanism and management loopholes in the protection of minors, resolve disputes from the source, strengthen the main responsibility of the platform and promote the healthy development of the digital economy.
This edition/reporter Chen Si
