Recently, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court concluded a case involving a minor’s request for a refund on in-game purchases. The individual at the center of the case, referred to by the pseudonym Liu Tian, is a 15-year-old middle school student. In an attempt to bypass the online gaming anti-addiction system, he misused his mother’s identity information to register a gaming account and spent nearly 5,000 yuan on in-game items.
Upon discovering this, Liu’s mother took legal action against the gaming platform and the payment processor, seeking a full refund of the charged amount as well as triple compensation. However, the court did not fully support her request.
To combat excessive use and potential addiction among minors, most online gaming platforms have implemented anti-addiction systems that restrict gaming time for young users. Judge Wang Juan, who presided over the case, explained that Liu Tian enjoyed playing online games. To bypass the minor identification system, he first registered for a short video platform using his father’s secondary phone number. He then accessed the game’s page through this platform, utilizing his mother’s identity information for the game’s real-name verification.
Over the course of nearly a year, Liu secretly transferred his mother’s WeChat balance to his account for in-game purchases, with amounts typically ranging from 6 to 588 yuan, cumulatively totaling around 5,000 yuan.
After the incident, Liu’s mother sued the short video platform and the gaming company, alleging that both had technical loopholes in preventing minor users from making purchases and that they had induced minors to spend, constituting fraud. She demanded a refund of the charged amounts along with nearly 15,000 yuan in combined damages.
This was not Liu’s first experience with large in-game expenditures. At the age of 11, he had previously used his mother’s phone to charge over 10,000 yuan in various games, ultimately obtaining a full refund through litigation.
The first-instance court found that Liu’s ability to bypass the gaming anti-addiction system, coupled with a lack of strict guidance from his guardians, primarily facilitated the unauthorized charges. The court noted that the gaming service provider had integrated its games into the nationally established anti-addiction real-name registration system and complied with anti-addiction requirements. Due to the inherent characteristics of online transactions, the service provider could reasonably assume that Liu, using his guardian’s identity, was an adult, thus not violating applicable regulations or committing fraud.
Judge Wang noted that, according to the Civil Code, minors above the age of eight possess limited civil capacity, which means that their civil acts need to be conducted by a legal representative or approved by one. Liu, being only 15 at the time of the transactions, was indeed classified as a limited capacity minor. However, it was determined that his actions were valid as they were appropriate for his age and understanding. Any actions exceeding a minor’s capacity, which Liu’s parents were not aware of or consented to beforehand, were deemed invalid, placing joint responsibility for the refunds on the two companies involved.
Referring to standards outlined in a 2019 notice by the National Press and Publication Administration, which caps single transaction amounts for users aged 8 to 16 at 50 yuan, with a monthly limit of 200 yuan, the first-instance court determined that the two companies should refund Liu 2,000 yuan of his expenses, rejecting other claims.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Liu’s mother appealed to the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court, which is set to review the case in June 2024. The focal point of the appeal concerns whether the short video platform should refund the full amount and if triple compensation is warranted.
In its second review, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court found that Liu’s request for refunds pointed to the invalidity of the transactions, fundamentally necessitated by his guardians’ failure to adequately monitor their devices, WeChat accounts, and payment passwords. Given that Liu had engaged in multiple online game purchases that had led to litigation, the court noted that the responsibility for any invalid contract stemmed from the legal guardian’s lack of supervision.
Moreover, existing evidence was insufficient to prove that both companies deliberately designed technical loopholes to entice minors into making purchases, thus failing to establish any claims of fraudulent intent.
Ultimately, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court upheld the initial ruling and dismissed the appeal, making the decision effective immediately.
Member of the court panel, Yu Yingying, stated that Liu’s parents attributed the responsibility solely to the gaming platform and its authentication system, overlooking their own negligence in managing their mobile devices and payment credentials. Given that similar incidents had occurred previously, their continued lack of supervision over Liu’s internet usage was also called into question.
The Minor Protection Law in China mandates that parents or guardians must improve their online literacy, standardize their internet behavior, and enhance supervision and guidance over minors’ online activities. Similarly, the Family Education Promotion Law requires guardians to properly balance minors’ time dedicated to studying, resting, entertainment, and exercise to prevent excessive internet use.
Judge Wang emphasized that addressing the issue of gaming addiction among children fundamentally involves parental involvement and supervision. She reminded the public that while guardians can legally request refunds after the fact, relying on the “minor game recharge refund mechanism” is not a long-term solution.