[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the return of high-value online rewards given to minors. A 15-year-old minor, Liu Yang, used a relative's account to top up and give rewards on Platform A without the knowledge of his guardians, accumulating a total of 1,889,464.7 yuan. Some streamers induced him by establishing "lover relationships" with him and sending him nude photos. His legal guardians entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on their behalf.Zhu GuiyingThe agent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the restriction of the civil capacity of minors, claimed that the online service contract was invalid and demanded the return of the recharge payment. The core disputes include the validity of the reward behavior, the responsibility of the platform and the streamer, and the proportion of the guardian's fault. The court ruled that the contract was invalid and determined that the platform should return 65% of the payment based on the comprehensive fault. Applicable legal provisions: Articles 19, 145, and 157 of the Civil Code. The final judgment ordered the return of 1,228,152 yuan.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"Can the money that children use their parents' phones to tip streamers be recovered?" and "How can minors recover the money they tip in live streams?" are questions that parents are anxiously searching for answers to. The plaintiff, Liu Yang (born in 2009), is a minor. After dropping out of school in early 2023, Liu Yang lived with his parents in Hebei. From August 2023 to September 2024, Liu Yang registered seven accounts on the "A Platform" operated by the defendant, Beijing A Technology Co., Ltd. using his parents' and sister's identity information and phone numbers without their knowledge. By controlling his mother's Alipay account and his father's bank card-linked Xianyu account, and after obtaining their payment passwords and turning off balance alerts, Liu Yang repeatedly withdrew funds from his parents' bank accounts to purchase virtual currency and tip streamers. After verification, the total amount of funds deposited into the involved accounts from June to September 2024 reached 1,889,464.7 yuan. Investigations revealed that the streamers induced Liu Yang to make payments and tips by establishing a "lover relationship" with him on the platform and sending him nude photos. In September 2024, after Liu Yang's father discovered the situation, he immediately contacted the A Company's customer service to request a refund and reported the case to the police, but the negotiations failed. To safeguard his legitimate rights and interests, Liu Yang, under the authorization of his legal guardian, entrusted Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhu GuiyingAs the litigation attorney, I filed a lawsuit against Company A in the court.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The effectiveness of large-scale tipping behavior by individuals with limited civil capacity.Liu Yang is only 15 years old. The large amount of recharge and reward far exceeds his age and intellectual capacity, and has not been recognized by his guardian. Therefore, the transaction should be considered invalid.
  • Focus II: The review and inducement responsibilities of the platform and streamers.The streamer sending ambiguous messages and nude photos to induce donations is suspected of violating the law. The platform should bear the corresponding refund responsibility for failing to implement real-name registration and the adolescent mode.
  • Focus 3: The impact of the guardian's fault on the repayment ratio.How to prove that the rewarder is a minor, and whether the guardian's negligence in managing the account results in a proportional deduction of the refund amount.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The party (the plaintiff) claims that:Liu Yang is a person with limited civil capacity. The large-scale tipping without the guardian's consent and the subsequent refusal to ratify it make the online service contract invalid; the platform streamer induced tipping, and the platform failed to verify the identity effectively, so it should refund the full amount of the recharge.

The defendant (platform) argued that:The plaintiff is a "second tipping" platform that has refunded the fees for the first time and informed them of the risks; the plaintiff directly tips the streamers and has no direct legal relationship with the platform; the plaintiff's evidence cannot prove that the transaction was done by himself; the guardian failed to fulfill his guardianship duties and committed major faults; the platform has set up a teenage mode, recharge reminders, etc., and has fulfilled its reasonable obligations.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Zhu GuixinAfter accepting the case, the lawyer quickly assembled a case-handling team and comprehensively reviewed the evidence chain: guiding the collection of Liu Yang's birth certificate, account registration information, real-name registration records of bound mobile phone numbers, recharge and reward details, payment records, etc. to prove that the funds came from her parents' accounts; fixing the evidence of the streamer establishing a "lover relationship" with the victim and sending nude photos to induce her; and retrieving the first refund application and customer service records to prove that the platform knew about the suspected minor's recharge but failed to take control measures. The lawyer pointed out that according to Articles 19, 145, and 157 of the Civil Code, if a minor participates in online tipping without the consent of his or her guardian, and the guardian requests the online service provider to return the funds, the people's court shall support the request. The platform, as the operator and beneficiary, failed to effectively verify the identity of the streamer, failed to fulfill its review obligations, and the streamer engaged in inducing behavior, so it should bear the responsibility to return the funds.

IV. Outcome of the case

After trial, the court adopted the lawyer's main arguments and concluded that: the seven accounts involved in the case were all owned by Liu Yang's close relatives. Liu Yang provided clear statements about the registration, recharge, and reward details, which were corroborated by the records, sufficient to prove that he was the actual user. When Liu Yang carried out the recharge actions, he was only 15 years old, and the cumulative recharge amount of nearly 1.9 million yuan far exceeded the cognitive range of ordinary minors and the normal consumption level of their families. Without obtaining the consent or subsequent recognition of his legal guardians, the recharge should be deemed invalid. Regarding the fault, Liu Yang's intentional evasion of supervision and closure of balance reminders showed obvious subjective fault; the guardian's negligence in management and failure to assist in real-name authentication; and Company A's failure to effectively control the accounts despite knowing that there were suspicions of minors making recharges. Based on the parties' faults and losses, the court determined that the defendant should return the recharge amount to the plaintiff at a ratio of 65%. The final judgment: confirm that the online service contract between the plaintiff Liu Yang and the defendant Beijing A Technology Co., Ltd. is invalid; the defendant shall refund the plaintiff the recharge amount of 1,228,152 yuan (calculated at 65% of the total recharge amount of 1,889,464.7 yuan) within seven days from the date the judgment takes effect.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhu GuiyinAgent. Large-scale live stream tipping activities conducted by 15-year-old minors are invalid, and guardians have the right to request refunds from the platform and the streamers, but they need to bear the burden of proof. If the streamers induce tipping or the platform fails to fulfill its obligations to protect minors, they should bear joint and several liability. It is recommended that guardians strengthen the management and education of minors' online accounts and payment tools on a daily basis, and fix evidence such as tipping records, chat screenshots, and payment transaction records in a timely manner when they find any abnormalities. First, they should appeal to the platform, then file an administrative complaint (to 12315), and, if necessary, entrust a lawyer to file a lawsuit.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Cases Involving Minors Receiving Gifts or Rewards

  1. Q: Can the money that children use their parents' phones to tip to streamers be recovered?
    A:Yes. Large-scale rewards exceeding the age and intelligence range of minors are invalid if not ratified by their guardians. Guardians may request the platform to return the rewards, but they need to prove that the rewards were made by the minors themselves.
  2. Q: What should I do if the platform for minors' tipping is only willing to refund a portion of the money?
    A:The court will determine the proportion of the refund based on the minor's fault, the guardian's negligence in custody, and the platform's failure to implement the teenage mode, etc. If no agreement can be reached, the party can file a lawsuit to claim a full or partial refund.
  3. Q: How can we prove that it's the minors who are giving the rewards, rather than their parents?
    A:The actual operator can be proven through evidence chains such as the ownership of the device, its location, the frequency of recharging (high frequency and small amount of impulsive consumption), the account registration information, and the details of their interactions with the streamers.
  4. Q: Should the streamer be held responsible if they induce minors to make donations?
    A:The streamer used ambiguous messages and nude photos to induce viewers to give donations, which is suspected of violating the Law on the Protection of Minors and the regulations of the Cyber Administration Department. The streamer and the platform should be held jointly responsible for this.
  5. Q: If parents tell their children their payment passwords, can they get a full refund for the rewards they've given out?
    A:If the guardian fails to fulfill his/her obligation of custody, he/she may be held liable for negligence and have his/her compensation reduced proportionally. However, if the platform fails to verify the guardian's identity or enable the teenage mode, it should still bear the main responsibility for refunds.