AI summary
Summary of article:
A husband in Fuzhou, Fujian Province, rewarded a female anchor on a live broadcast platform with more than 1.5 million yuan in three months. His wife believed that he had been induced by vague inducements and sued for compensation. However, the court found that this was normal online consumption and ultimately rejected the request.
A married man in Fuzhou, Fujian province spent more than 1.5 million yuan (RMB, same below, about US$222,000) in three months on a live broadcast platform to reward female anchors. When his wife found out, she was so angry that she filed a lawsuit, accusing the female anchor of using an ambiguous relationship to induce consumption, and demanded that the female anchor and the platform return all the money. However, after the trial, the court held that live streaming awards are essentially spending money to purchase entertainment services, not just giving money to the anchor. Moreover, there was no evidence to prove that the female anchor intentionally cheated in the reward and ultimately the verdict was against the wife.
Yangtze Evening News reported that according to the judgment published by the China Judgment Documents Network, the man surnamed Chen repeatedly recharged money on the live broadcast platform to buy virtual props “diamonds” from February to May this year, and then used them to reward the female anchor surnamed Chu, the cumulative amount of which exceeded 1.5 million yuan. It is understood that Chen Nan is engaged in sales work and his annual income ranges from hundreds of thousands to 1 million yuan.
In addition, on May 20, Chu Nu transferred 520 yuan to Chen Nan through Alipay and left the message “520 yuan for a good life.” This transfer also became one of the reasons why his wife questioned whether the relationship between the two was simple.
Chen Nan’s wife believes that her husband has harmed her rights and interests by spending large amounts of joint property without her consent during the marriage. She accused Chu of keeping her husband topped up, giving him gifts, and even using vague talk and emotional persuasion to deliberately shape him into a “big brother” in the live broadcast room. Chen Nan’s wife accused the platform of exceeding one million yuan in reward records in a short time, but failed to immediately remind or limit the consumption, so she took the female anchor and the platform to court.
In this regard, the platform said that live streaming tipping is a consumption behavior in which users pay to watch the performance and interact with the anchors, and is not a simple gift of property. Chu Nu also denied having an inappropriate relationship with Chen Nan, emphasizing that she did not induce the other party to spend money through love or emotional means.
After the trial, the court pointed out that each recharge and reward given by Mr. Chen was an independent consumption behavior and should not be accumulated and evaluated; And as a high-income person with full capacity for civil conduct, Chen’s every consumption does not necessarily infringe the husband and wife’s right to dispose of common property.
Furthermore, Chen’s value-added behavior was targeted at a live broadcast platform, and the value-added behavior was neither illegal nor against public order and good customs. On the issue of whether the female anchor deliberately induced the reward, the court believed that the evidence provided by Chen Nan’s wife was insufficient to prove it. Therefore, the court determined that Chen Nan’s reward was ordinary online consumption and not a free gift of money to the anchor. It ultimately rejected Chen Nan’s wife’s request for a refund of more than 1.5 million yuan.
Summary FAQ
-
According to the verdict, a man surnamed Chen made several top-ups from February to May this year to purchase virtual props and reward female anchors. The cumulative amount exceeded 1.5 million yuan, equivalent to approximately US$222,000.
-
The wife claimed that her husband spent a large amount of the couple’s joint property without her consent during the marriage, and the female anchor was suspected of inducing consumption through vague conversations and emotional persuasion. Therefore, he requested the female anchor and the platform to return the entire reward amount.
-
The court held that tips were free and normal online consumption, Chen was a high-income earner with full capacity for civil conduct, and there was not enough evidence to prove that the female anchor intentionally induced or deceived tips, so it dismissed his wife’s lawsuit.
