Who owns virtual property when a borrowed account goes viral?
Compiled from: Supreme People's Court
[3] A pair of cousins had a dispute over a livestreaming account registered under a borrowed name, and took the case to court to fight for the right to use the account. How should disputes over virtual property be handled to legally protect the legitimate property rights of the rightful owners?
Case review
[4] Xiaoyi borrowed her cousin Xiaowang's ID number to register an account on a livestreaming platform, and had been using the account to livestream, keeping all the income from the account. Through her efforts, the account gained 306,000 followers, making her a host with high "wealth level" and "star level" on the platform. Later, Xiaoyi applied to the livestreaming platform to change the real-name authentication information of the account. After review, the platform found that Xiaoyi had always been the actual host of the account, so it changed the real-name authentication to Xiaoyi. Cousin Xiaowang believed that the livestreaming platform and Xiaoyi had maliciously colluded to change the account's real-name authentication, seriously infringing on her virtual property rights. She then filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that the livestreaming platform revert the real-name authentication of the account back to her.
[5] Xiaoyi argued that she had started livestreaming for entertainment, and because her ID card was not with her, she used Xiaowang's account. She was the actual user of the livestreaming account, while the platform was the owner. Although the account was registered using Xiaowang's identity information, it was not actually related to Xiaowang.
The live streaming platform argued that Xiao Wang violated the terms by lending his account, constituting a breach of contract, and that the platform had the right to restrict or terminate Xiao Wang's use of the account, as well as to establish a contractual relationship with the actual user, Xiao Yi, by changing the real-name authentication to comply with internet live streaming service management requirements.
After trial, the court held that live streaming accounts are virtual property and should be protected by law. The property rights of the account include two parts: the account itself, and the property interests such as followers and traffic generated through the user's personalized use and operation of the account. According to the service agreement signed between the live streaming platform and the user, Xiao Wang's transfer of the account to Xiao Yi without platform review constituted an unauthorized transfer. The platform's termination of Xiao Wang's continued use of the account was a reasonable measure based on the agreement and rules, and did not constitute infringement. Xiao Yi was not listed on the blacklist of hosts in the online performance (live streaming) industry, and the platform's re-agreement with Xiao Yi that the right to use the account belonged to Xiao Yi did not violate any prohibitive provisions of laws or regulations. Moreover, the account generated new property content, such as follower numbers, through Xiao Yi's long-term operation. This property content originated from the audience's recognition of Xiao Yi and his live streaming content, built upon Xiao Yi's labor and management, and had a certain personal attachment. Allocating the relevant property rights to the creator aligns with the value of rewarding labor and is fairer.
In summary, the court ruled that the live streaming platform's change of real-name authentication did not constitute infringement and dismissed all of Xiao Wang's claims. The judgment has now taken effect.
[1] The author's perspective
In this case, the registrant breached the contract by transferring the account, and the live streaming platform had the right to terminate the contract according to the service agreement and to enter into a new contract with the user regarding the account. The protection of virtual property added to the account should consider two aspects: first, from the principle of fairness, determining the contributions of each party to the formation of the online virtual property. An important feature of online virtual property is its value, and civil subjects have expended labor to obtain that value. Granting virtual property rights to the party that contributed labor aligns with the principle of fairness and the value of encouraging labor and creating social wealth. Second, from the principle of efficiency, maximizing the economic value of online virtual property. The cost for Xiao Wang to register a new account is low, while Xiao Yi abandoning the account would waste the virtual property added to it.
Judicial decisions should respect the development laws of virtual property and balance the interests of all parties. Internet platforms should also further improve real-name management, enhance the precision of real-name supervision, truly achieve both "real-name" and "real-person," and effectively combat behavior that evades regulation.
