Peninsula all** reporter Yin Yanxin.
With the rise of online live broadcasting, more and more "big brothers" who are addicted to the virtual world are spending a lot of money in the live broadcast room, which leads to all kinds of disputes. Recently, the Pingdu Court concluded a case in which the husband rewarded the female anchor with marital property and the spouse demanded the return of the property.
Basic facts of the case Liu (female) and Jin (male) are husband and wife. In March 2021, Jin met the anchor Wu (female) through the live broadcast software developed by a technology company. Jin recharged through WeChat transfer many times to reward the anchor Wu, and the two gradually developed from online interaction to offline meeting, and became fixed lovers. In addition to rewarding through live broadcast software, Jin also bought gold bracelets, clothing, cosmetics, etc. for Wu, and by the time Liu found out in June 2023, Jin had spent a total of more than 150,000 yuan for Liu. Liu believed that Jin's behavior seriously infringed on the joint property of the husband and wife, so he filed a lawsuit with the Pingdu Court, demanding that the three defendants, Jin, Wu, and a technology company, return the jointly owned property of the husband and wife that had been infringed.
The court ruled that the Pingdu court held that the defendant Jin was a person with full civil capacity and voluntarily registered and recharged to become a user of a live broadcast software, that is, a legal and effective network service contract relationship with a technology company. Jin's payment for the spiritual value brought to him by the live broadcast content and the tipping service is a consumer behavior, and there is no statutory invalidity of the network service contract, so the plaintiff Liu's request for the return of the tipping money cannot be established and is rejected. Defendant Jin established an improper relationship with defendant Wu during the marriage and donated the joint property of the husband and wife to Wu without permission, which violated the principle of public order and good customs, and the gift was invalid, and the plaintiff Liu had the right to demand its return. In the end, the Pingdu Court ruled that the defendant Wu should return 64,731 yuan to the plaintiff Liu, and rejected the plaintiff Liu's other claims. At present, the judgment in the case has entered into force.
Judge's Statement: As an emerging cultural industry, webcasting has promoted the integration of online and offline economies and brought about a richer cultural life. The anchor's acceptance of a tip from an audience with full capacity for civil conduct is not a gift contract relationship, but a network service contract relationship, and the tipper cannot request the return of the reward property if there is no statutory invalidity. However, if the tipper and the anchor develop an extramarital relationship and donate the joint property of the husband and wife to the anchor without authorization, it is contrary to public order and good customs, and shall be invalid, and the other spouse has the right to demand that the anchor return the donated property.
The names of the characters in the article have been changed).