With the rise of online live streaming, 

tipping streamers has become an entertainment method for many users. 

However, irrational tipping behavior can not only trigger family conflicts but also lead to legal disputes.

  Recently, the Qinbei District People's Court of Qinzhou City concluded a case involving a dispute over confirming the invalidity of a contract caused by the wife's large donations in a live broadcast room. The husband sued the streamer and the live broadcast platform, demanding the return of all the donation money, but the court ultimately rejected his lawsuit request.

Basic Facts of the Case

Plaintiff Jiang Long has been married to his wife Huifang for many years. Since May 2022, Huifang has developed a strong interest in a talent streamer named 'Xiao Hai' on a short video platform. She not only watched his livestreams frequently but also became a "loyal fan" in his live room.

Over more than a year, Huifang recharged the platform and tipped 'gold coins' (the platform's virtual gift currency) to Xiao Hai through two accounts, totaling more than 5.35 million coins, with over 20,000 transactions, ranging in value from 1 yuan to 3,000 yuan. According to the platform's 10:1 exchange rate, this amounts to over 535,000 RMB. In addition, Huifang also transferred money within the platform, bought takeout, clothing, and other items for Xiao Hai, totaling more than 4,600 RMB. The total of the aforementioned amounts exceeds 540,000 RMB, and Huifang's total platform recharge during this period reached over 610,000 RMB.

After learning about the situation, Jiang Long believed that Huifang's tipping behavior violated the rights to marital joint property as it was done without his consent. He claims that the streamer Xiao Hai established an improper relationship with Huifang by sending ambiguous messages and private photos, inducing her to tip large amounts of money, which violates relevant industry regulations. The platform, as the operator, did not fulfill its supervisory duties, allowing Xiao Hai to livestream using another person's real-name account, thus facilitating the tipping, and should jointly return the tips and transfers along with Xiao Hai.

Therefore, Jiang Long filed a lawsuit against Xiao Hai and the platform operator, a certain technology company, in Qinbei District Court, requesting the court to declare Huifang's tipping and gifting invalid and to order the two defendants to return all funds exceeding 540,000 RMB.

Court trial

The defendant Xiaohai argued that he and Huifang had a legitimate online service contract, and that Huifang, as a person with full civil capacity, made the tipping based on recognition of his live-streaming talent, which was a genuine expression of intent, with no inducement or fraud involved. Jianglong was not a participant in the tipping behavior in question and had no right to file a lawsuit in this case.  

The defendant, a certain technology company, submitted a written defense stating that it had a lawful and valid online service contract with Huifang, that Huifang's top-up and tipping behavior belonged to cultural and entertainment consumption, and that the platform had provided online services as agreed and had fulfilled its duty to provide rational tipping reminders. The platform could not objectively know Huifang’s marital status, and Huifang’s tipping was in small amounts, frequent, and long-term, not exceeding the scope of daily household agency. As a good-faith third party, the platform was not required to return the related funds.  

After examination, the Qinbei District Court held that online live streaming has characteristics of openness, immediacy, and interactivity. Anchors attract users through performance services, and users can independently choose whether to tip. Huifang, as a person with full civil capacity, voluntarily registered a platform account, signed a service agreement, topped up virtual currency, and tipped the anchor. Her tipping behavior was not a mere gift but was based on value-added services provided by the platform and the anchor’s performance, and it was considered consumption behavior under an online service contract.  

Regarding Jianglong's claim that Xiaohai induced tipping and that the parties had an improper relationship, the court pointed out that Jianglong failed to provide sufficient and valid evidence such as chat records or photos. All parties confirmed that Xiaohai and Huifang only communicated online, did not meet offline, and did not add each other on other social media, making it impossible to establish inducement or an improper relationship. As for Huifang’s transfers to Xiaohai, since the purpose of the funds could not be clarified and there was no evidence that they were requested by Xiaohai, Jianglong’s request to return this part of the funds had neither factual nor legal basis.  

In summary, the court ruled in the first instance that Huifang's tipping and transfer behavior constituted valid online service consumption, and rejected all of plaintiff Jianglong’s claims to declare the tipping invalid and to have the anchor and platform return over 540,000 yuan. After the verdict, neither party filed an appeal within the statutory period, and the judgment has now taken legal effect.

Judicial reasoning

Article 18 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that an adult with full civil capacity can independently perform civil legal acts. In this case, Huifang, as a person with full civil capacity, voluntarily registered an account on the platform, signed the service agreement, recharged virtual currency, and tipped the streamers. Her actions comply with this legal provision, forming a legitimate online service contract relationship with the platform and the streamers. The tipping behavior reflects her true intention, and she gained spiritual pleasure and value-added services from the platform during the tipping process, which constitutes a legal consumer behavior and is not an invalid civil act.  

Article 1062 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that spouses have equal rights to manage joint property; Article 1060 stipulates that a civil legal act performed by one spouse for the needs of daily family life is effective for both spouses, except where the spouse has made other arrangements with the counterparty. In this case, although the total amount tipped by Huifang is relatively large, the behavior is characterized by small amounts, multiple times, and over a long period, which aligns with daily cultural and entertainment consumption habits and does not exceed the scope of family agency rights. Her disposition behavior complies with the above provisions. Meanwhile, the live streaming platform, as a bona fide third party, objectively cannot know the marital status of the user. It provided services according to the agreed terms and fulfilled its duty to give reminders, and therefore is not liable for reimbursement.  

Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that parties are responsible for providing evidence for their claims. Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or to refute the facts on which the opposing party's claims are based, except as otherwise stipulated by law. Before a judgment is made, if a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, Jiang Long claimed that Xiaohai induced tipping and that there was an improper relationship between the two, but did not submit sufficient and valid evidence; therefore, his claim cannot be supported.

Judge's reminder

Frequent family disputes and legal controversies are currently triggered by irrational online tipping. The general public should participate in live-stream tipping rationally and spend within their financial means to avoid affecting family harmony due to blind consumption. Couples should strengthen communication, properly manage shared marital property, and reach mutual agreement on major spending decisions. At the same time, when safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests, people should ensure to keep sufficient evidence to avoid bearing adverse legal consequences due to insufficient proof. Live-streaming platforms should also earnestly fulfill their supervisory responsibilities, regulate the behavior of hosts, and proactively remind users to tip rationally, jointly creating a healthy and orderly online live-streaming environment.

This article is reprinted from the WeChat public account "Shandong High Court," with thanks.