[Significance]

In recent years, the webcast industry has developed rapidly and become an emerged form of digital economy, and the number of related disputes also increased. This case clearly defines the legal relationship among the users, the live broadcast streamer and the live broadcast platform, and specifies the legal nature of “live broadcast gratuity”. By defining the legal nature of relations and behaviors related to webcast, this case clarifies the rights and obligations of parties involved, helps regulate webcast activities and promotes the healthy development of the live broadcast industry.

[Case Summary]

Liu Qiqi is a streamer of Harbin Xingrong Culture Media Co., Ltd. (“Xingrong”) who performed live broadcasts on the YY live-broadcasting platform operated by Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Huaduo”). Liu Qiqi’s live broadcast room is opened with the YY account of Wang Zikai, the legal representative of Xingyi Company. Between February 2017 and April 2017, Yu Binhua spent a total of RMB 59,291.28 yuan (including gifts and enabling functions of “Duke” and “Guardian”) in Liu’s live broadcast room. On March 17, 2017, Yu Binhua was the top gift-giver that day and was set as VP of the room by Liu. On April 7, 2017, Liu canceled Yu Binhua’s VP permission, because Liu Qiqi objected to Yu Binhua’s activities including transferring money through WeChat or giving gifts to Liu privately. Yu Binhua filed a civil lawsuit before a court, requested to cancel the contract regarding offering gifts in the live broadcast room, and requested for ten prayers for relief including requesting Huaduo, Wang Zirong, Xingrong, and Liu Qiqi to jointly return a total of RMB 49,291.28 Yuan.

[Decision]

The court concludes that, the webcast platform provides platform services for users, and charges service fees through users’ purchase and use of virtual currency. The two form a legal relationship of Internet service contract. Generally, a gift contract is established when a user offers “gratuity” to the streamer, unless there is evidence to prove that the streamer must perform specific and clear contractual obligations before and after accepting the “gratuity”. In this case, the plaintiff Yu Binhua’s act of offering “gratuity” to the defendant Liu Qiqi did not involve any agreement requiring the defendant to fulfill specific obligations, nor did it put forward any consideration of the “gratuity”, and so it should be deemed as a gift contract rather than a service contract.

On January 7, 2019, Guangzhou Internet Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has become effective.