After winning an Olympiad gold medal and being admitted to Peking University, he now sells courses via livestream. What are the legal risks behind the fall of a genius? A lawyer analyzes compliance in the knowledge payment sector.
Lead
Recently, a math prodigy who once won a gold medal at the International Mathematical Olympiad and was directly admitted to Peking University was exposed for selling courses on a livestream, sparking widespread public debate. Behind the shift in identity from a "prodigy" to a "livestream seller" lies not only personal choice but also numerous legal issues in the knowledge payment industry. As lawyers, we are more concerned about: what legal red lines are involved in livestream course sales? How can consumers protect their rights? How can practitioners operate in compliance? This article will provide an in-depth analysis from a legal perspective.
I. Legal Nature and Contract Risks of Live-Streaming Course Sales
Live-streaming course sales are essentially a form of knowledge payment, and their legal nature is that of an education and training service contract. Under Article 469 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, parties may conclude a contract in written, oral, or other forms. In live-streaming course sales, the host reaches an agreement with consumers by presenting course content, promising learning outcomes, and similar means, thereby constituting a contractual relationship.
However, in practice, such contracts carry numerous risks. For example, if streamers or institutions exaggerate course effectiveness in their promotional materials, promising "guaranteed admission to Tsinghua or Peking University" or "a 30-point score increase," and fail to deliver on such promises, this may constitute false advertising or even fraud. Under Article 24 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, education and training advertisements shall not contain explicit or implied guaranteed commitments regarding advancement to higher education, passing examinations, obtaining degrees, diplomas, or certificates of qualification, or regarding the effectiveness of education or training. Violators will be subject to administrative penalties.
Furthermore, the quality of course content varies widely. If the courses actually delivered are seriously inconsistent with the promotional claims, consumers may rely on Article 563 of the Civil Code to claim rescission of the contract and demand a refund of the purchase price. However, in practice, consumers often face difficulties such as burdensome evidence production and high enforcement costs. Therefore, it is recommended that consumers carefully review the contract terms before purchase, retain evidence such as promotional screenshots and payment vouchers, and, where necessary, file complaints with market regulatory authorities or initiate legal proceedings.
2. Compliance Boundaries in Advertising and Promotion: The Line Between Genius Persona and False Advertising
"Math genius" and "Olympiad gold medal" labels are the core selling points in live-streaming course sales. However, if these labels do not match the facts, or if they are true but excessively exaggerated, they may cross the legal red line of false advertising. According to Article 28 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, advertisements that deceive or mislead consumers with false or misleading content constitute false advertising. The advertiser, advertising operator, and advertising publisher all bear corresponding liability.
Specifically in this case, if the streamer did indeed win an International Mathematical Olympiad gold medal, then the "genius" public persona is not fabricated. However, if the streamer implied during the livestream that "following me will guarantee you a gold medal," that would constitute a guaranteed commitment regarding results, potentially violating the Advertising Law. Furthermore, under Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, business operators shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity regarding the performance, functions, quality, sales status, user reviews, or honors received of their goods, thereby deceiving or misleading consumers. If the streamer creates the illusion of "hot sales" through fake transactions or fabricated sales figures, this also constitutes unfair competition.
For platforms, according to Article 38 of the E-Commerce Law, if an e-commerce platform operator knows or should know that the goods sold or services provided by merchants on the platform do not meet the requirements for the protection of personal and property safety, or otherwise infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of consumers, and fails to take necessary measures, the platform shall bear joint and several liability with the merchant in accordance with the law. Therefore, platforms should also strengthen their review processes; otherwise, they may face legal risks.
III. Consumer Rights Protection: Legal Solutions to Difficulties in Refunds and Rights Defense
In live-streaming course sales, consumers often encounter the problem of "easy payment but difficult refunds." According to Article 25 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, where business operators sell goods through the internet, television, telephone, mail order, or other such means, consumers have the right to return goods within seven days from the date of receipt without giving any reason, except for goods that are not suitable for return due to their nature and have been confirmed by the consumer at the time of purchase as not returnable. As for online courses, whether the seven-day no-reason return policy applies is disputed in practice. Some courts hold that once an online course is delivered, consumers can fully access the content, and allowing no-reason returns may lead to unfairness. Therefore, consumers should confirm whether the platform supports refunds before purchasing and retain evidence of any relevant commitments.
If encountering a fee refund dispute, consumers may, in accordance with Article 39 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, seek resolution through avenues such as negotiation and conciliation with the business operator, requesting mediation by the consumer association, filing complaints with relevant administrative departments, applying for arbitration with arbitration institutions, or initiating litigation with the people's court. In addition, pursuant to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Consumer Civil Public Interest Litigation, if the business operator's conduct infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of numerous consumers, the consumer association may file a public interest lawsuit, which provides a new path for consumers to safeguard their rights collectively.
IV. Individual Income Tax and Platform Responsibility: Tax Compliance for Paid Knowledge Services
Income from selling courses via live streaming constitutes remuneration for personal services obtained by individuals engaged in education and training services, and according to Article 2 of the Individual Income Tax Law of the People's Republic of China, individual income tax shall be paid. If the streamer operates in an individual capacity, tax shall be declared and paid under "income from remuneration for personal services" or "income from business operations"; if operated through a company, corporate income tax is involved. In practice, some streamers evade tax by concealing income, converting the nature of income, and other means, such as in the cases of Zheng Shuang and Viya, who were all severely punished. According to Article 63 of the Law on the Administration of Tax Collection, where a taxpayer evades tax, the tax authorities shall recover the tax not paid or underpaid and impose a late payment surcharge, and also impose a fine of not less than 50 percent but not more than five times the amount of tax not paid or underpaid.
On the platform side, according to Article 9 of the Individual Income Tax Law, the individual obtaining the income is the taxpayer, and the unit or individual paying the income is the withholding agent. Therefore, as the paying party, the platform has the obligation to withhold and remit the streamers' individual income tax. If the platform fails to fulfill this obligation, it will face administrative penalties such as fines. Consequently, both streamers and platforms should attach importance to tax compliance to avoid losing the greater for the lesser.
Conclusion: Lessons from the "Fall of a Genius" from a Legal Perspective
A math genius pivoting to live-streaming course sales is understandable, but ignoring legal risks may turn a "genius" into a "defendant." For practitioners, the knowledge payment industry is a trend, but compliance is the bottom line. Marketing must be truthful, contracts must be clear, and tax affairs must be properly handled—only then can one achieve steady and sustainable growth. For consumers, spending rationally, retaining evidence, and seeking legal remedies in accordance with the law are the only reliable ways to protect their rights and interests.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has深耕 in the entertainment and internet legal field, having provided compliance review and dispute resolution services for numerous MCN agencies and knowledge payment platforms. If you are facing similar legal issues, you are welcome to consult us. We will resolve your concerns with professional expertise.
