[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over online infringement liability (inciting suicide resulting in death). On December 8, 2022, 14-year-old Zhao Qingqing joined a WeChat group due to long-term depression. She was incited and guided by group members Zhao *xin, Wu *, and Liu *xing to prepare and administer poison and draft a suicide note, ultimately dying from nitrite poisoning. The police determined that this did not constitute a criminal case. Her parents entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Yuan HangThe lawyer turned to civil tort litigation to protect the rights and interests of the victim. The core disputes include: the causal relationship between the instigation act and the death; the determination of joint infringement; the liability of the platform and the seller; and the liability of the guardian of the minor. The applicable legal provisions include Article 1169 of the Civil Code and others. The lawyer argued that the instigator constitutes joint infringement, the guardian should bear responsibility, and the seller and the platform should be held accountable for their obligations of review and warning.

1. Review of the case

On December 8, 2022, in a residential building in Beijing, 14-year-old Zhao Qingqing closed her eyes forever. The forensic medical examination determined that she died from nitrite poisoning. Before her death, she had been in a state of depression for a long time. In November 2022, she joined a WeChat group for depressed teenagers, where group members Zhao *xin, Wu * and Liu *xing often discussed suicide methods and shared suicide guides. On the evening of December 7, group members guided her step by step in measuring the dose and preparing the solution. After vomiting after her first attempt, they still encouraged her to drink more. Zhao Qingqing's parents, Liu Shu and Zhao Gang, sorted through her belongings and found shocking chat records. Initially, they hoped to pursue criminal charges, but as the three group members were all minors and had depression symptoms, the public security organ refused to file a case. Liu Shu and Zhao Gang entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Yuan HangThe lawyer turned to defending the rights in civil tort liability disputes.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Causality and the determination of joint infringement.It is necessary to prove that there is a direct causal relationship between the defendant's instigation and the death, sort out their specific roles in the instigation, and confirm the joint infringement.
  • Focus 2: The authenticity of online behavior and the identification of the subject.It is necessary to confirm the identity of the person using the WeChat account and ensure that the chat records have not been tampered with. When the original carrier cannot be opened, indirect evidence such as witness testimonies should be used to support the case.
  • Focus Three: The responsibilities of the platform and sellers.The question is whether the online sales platform and the food ingredient supplier B have fulfilled their obligations of review and warning, which relates to the scope of the responsible parties.
  • Focus 4: The responsibilities of guardians of minors.The instigators are mostly people with limited civil capacity. How should their guardians' responsibilities be defined, and can the compensation be enforced?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The clients (Liu Shu and Zhao Gang) allege that:It is required that the instigators, Zhao *xin, Wu * and Liu *xing, and their guardians bear civil compensation liability, and the sellers and the platform shall be held accountable for failing to fulfill their obligations of review and warning.

The position of the defendant (the instigator and the platform seller):The defendant denied or defended himself, and the platform and the seller claimed that they had fulfilled their obligations of review and warning.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Yuan HangThe lawyer put forward the core arguments of the case: Firstly, Zhao Qingqing's death stemmed from the defendant's malicious incitement and guidance. The defendant had the subjective intent to incite others to commit suicide, and there was a direct causal relationship between his actions and the victim's death. According to Article 1169 of the Civil Code, this constitutes joint infringement, and the guardian should bear joint and several liability. Secondly, the actions of the three defendants posed a recurrent risk. If similar tragedies are not punished or continue to occur, it will lead to more serious consequences. Thirdly, the seller B Food Ingredients Company, as a seller of toxic and harmful products, and the online sales platform A, as a transaction and social platform, failed to fulfill their obligations of review and warning, and should bear corresponding responsibilities. The lawyer used evidence as a weapon to expose the malice behind the "patient's mask" and sorted through massive chat records to confirm the roles of each party involved.

IV. Outcome of the case

After trial, the court found that the defendants, Zhao *xin, Wu *, and Liu *xing, maliciously instigated and guided Zhao Qingqing to mix poison and draft a suicide note in the group, which had a direct causal relationship with the death result and constituted joint infringement. According to Article 1169 of the Civil Code, the court ordered their guardians to bear corresponding joint and several compensation liabilities; at the same time, it was found that the platform and the seller failed to fulfill their obligations of review and warning, and should bear corresponding responsibilities. The judgment not only seeks legal redress for the deceased, but also serves as a warning for the governance of the online environment and the responsibilities of the platform.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Yuan HangThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202110286151, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. The Internet is not a lawless place. Inciting and inducing others to commit suicide may constitute joint infringement and entail civil compensation liability. The platform and the seller also have the obligation to review and warn. In the event of similar online infringement, the family should pay attention to preserving chat records, police reports, and account information, and hire a professional lawyer as soon as possible to clarify the causality and the responsible parties.

VI. Common FAQs on Protecting Rights against Online Incitement to Suicide

  1. Q: Is it necessary to take responsibility for inciting others to commit suicide online?
    A:Yes. If someone instigates or induces others to commit suicide with subjective intent and a causal relationship to the death, it constitutes joint infringement according to Article 1196 of the Civil Code, and the instigator and guardian shall bear compensation liability.
  2. Q: If the instigator is a minor, who will compensate for the damages?
    A:If the instigator is a person with limited civil capacity, the infringement liability shall be borne by his guardian; if there are multiple instigators who commit joint infringement, the guardian shall bear joint and several compensation liability.
  3. Q: Do businesses that sell suicide-related products have any responsibilities?
    A:Yes. If the merchants selling toxic and harmful products fail to fulfill their obligations of review and warning, they may be held liable for their faults and bear corresponding compensation responsibilities.
  4. Q: Is the platform responsible for inciting people to engage in group chats?
    A:If the platform fails to fulfill its obligations of real-name authentication, content review, and risk warning, and there is a causal relationship with the damage, it may bear corresponding responsibilities.
  5. Q: Can I still file a civil claim if no criminal case is initiated?
    A:Yes. The fact that the case is not prosecuted in criminal court does not affect the filing of a civil infringement lawsuit. Family members can claim compensation for the instigator's responsibility and the platform's and seller's liability.