Legal regulations on game recharge for minorsNew Hainan Client, Nanhai.com, and Nanguo Metropolis Daily's "Detective Story" column join hands with Hainan Shoubang Law Firm to tell interesting legal st

Legal regulations on game recharge for minorsNew Hainan Client, Nanhai.com, and Nanguo Metropolis Daily's "Detective Story" column join hands with Hainan Shoubang Law Firm to tell interesting legal stories and explore The warm justice behind the cold legal provisions is all-encompassing with case explanations, adhering to a fair and objective point of view, talking about the law, looking at gains and losses, and tasting life. We have specially opened the "966123 legal hotline". If you are willing to share the legal problems you encounter, you are welcome to call and talk. In front of and behind the scenes, from the court hearing to ordinary life, we will pay careful attention and record the case from beginning to end. New Hainan Client, Nanhai Net, Nanguo Metropolis Daily reporter Wang Tianyuwen/picture "I want to dress myself up more beautifully and have stronger skills... Come to 'Krypton Gold' to recharge!" Recently, a Hainan man A 13-year-old girl was attracted by an online mobile game and secretly used her mother's WeChat account to recharge the game with virtual gold coins "diamonds", amounting to more than 10,000 yuan. This behavior made the child's mother furious. In recent years, incidents of minors playing games and recharging large amounts of money have occurred from time to time. So, can minors get their money back? Are the child's parents responsible? Zhang Jie’s child is playing the game recharge interface. Photo by reporter Wang Tianyu Incident: A 13-year-old girl in Hainan stole games and recharged more than 10,000 yuan. Recently, Zhang Jie (pseudonym) from Hainan encountered an annoying incident. The cause was that his 13-year-old daughter was stolen from an online game called "Tom and Jerry" He was attracted by mobile games and secretly used Zhang Jie's WeChat to recharge the game to buy virtual game currency "diamonds", amounting to more than 10,000 yuan. If it weren’t for the WeChat payment push on the morning of June 26, Zhang Jie would still be in the dark. "I had just been discharged from the hospital that day, and the WeChat account showed that yesterday's expenditure amounted to more than 4,000 yuan. I didn't remember that much expenditure." Zhang Jie said that she carefully checked the transaction records and found that the purchased goods for many bills were "Cat and Mouse Diamonds", and the deducting merchant was a Shenzhen Computer System Co., Ltd., and the deducted amount was more than 4,000 yuan. Seeing these transaction records, Zhang Jie was dumbfounded because this was not a product she purchased. At first, she did not know what product she purchased. However, after checking with her child, she found out that it was secretly purchased by her child in the game using her mobile phone. Purchase the virtual game currency "Diamonds". Part of the deduction information displayed on Zhang Jie’s mobile phone. Photo by reporter Wang Tianyu After verification, Zhang Jie found that from May 31 to June 26 this year, her mobile phone had 55 transaction records of purchasing goods. The largest amount was 648 yuan, and the smallest amount was 1 yuan. Zhang Jie revealed to reporters that the child's game account was registered using her QQ, and the payment was completed without her knowledge. "To be honest, I didn't tell my children my WeChat payment password at all. Maybe I secretly wrote it down while I was entering the password when I took my children to the supermarket to check out." Zhang Jie said that because of this incident, the child knew that she was wrong and wrote an apology letter to her to admit her mistake. In order to recover the losses, Zhang Jie called the game's health game consultation platform to report the situation and applied for a refund according to relevant customer service prompts. Some of the deduction information compiled by Zhang Jie. Photo by reporter Wang Tianyu On the morning of June 30, Zhang Jie told reporters that the recharge amount of the game account involved by the game platform was more than 9,000 yuan, but it was not a full refund. The refund information she received was 50, and the total amount was 8,000 yuan. Yu Yuan. She was very satisfied with the refund amount. Because as a parent, there are also areas where you neglect supervision. In addition, she reminded parents to take good care of their mobile phones, bank cards and other items, and do not let their children know the payment password to avoid unnecessary losses to their children. Current situation: The phenomenon of minors recharging money in games happens from time to time. In fact, the behavior of minors playing games and recharging money is not only detrimental to the formation of a correct concept of money, but also affects their studies, and makes some families who are not wealthy even worse. . In order to recover the losses, parents will try their best to get the money back through various channels, but the amount that can be fully recovered is very rare. In 2021, a similar case occurred in Haikou. A 10-year-old boy, Xiao Ming (pseudonym), fell in love with a game and secretly used his mother's mobile phone to recharge the game and spend more than 40,000 yuan. Xiao Ming's mother went to the game company to apply for a refund, but she only needed more than 20,000 yuan back. The reporter noticed that the above-mentioned case is not an isolated case, because refund disputes caused by minors playing mobile game recharges are not uncommon. According to media reports on May 20 this year, Ms. Zhao from Baoding, Hebei Province reported that her 11-year-old son used a relative’s mobile phone to play three games and recharged 66 times in a few days for a total of 14,684 yuan. She also got into a tug-of-war with the game developer over refunds. ". In addition, reporters combed through public media reports and relevant cases on the China Judgment Documents Network and found that in cases involving disputes over online service contracts for minors, parents often encounter "difficulties in providing evidence" and "difficulties in refunds" when applying to the platform for refunds. In some cases, the plaintiff lost the case because he could not identify the transaction subject as a minor. The parents won the case and the court supported the platform in returning part of the money. Focus of controversy: 1. If a minor recharges a large amount in the game, can he request a refund? In recent years, incidents of minors playing games and making large recharges have occurred frequently. So, can parents request a refund? In this regard, Lin Lihua, a lawyer at Hainan Xianguo Law Firm, said that according to Article 19 of the Civil Law: "Minors over eight years old are persons with limited capacity for civil conduct. When performing civil legal acts, they shall be represented by their legal representatives or through their legal representatives." The legal representative agrees and recognizes; however, minors who can independently carry out civil legal acts purely for profit or civil legal acts commensurate with their age and intelligence are excluded." Article 20 stipulates that "minors under the age of eight are persons without capacity for civil conduct and shall be represented by their legal representatives in performing civil legal acts." The Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Proper Trial of Civil Cases concerning the New Crown Cash Epidemic in accordance with the Law (II)" mentioned: People with limited capacity for civil conduct participate in online paid games or online live streaming platform payment activities without the consent of their guardians, and the expenses are in line with their age, age, and age. The guardian requests the network service provider to return the money to the person with limited capacity for civil conduct if the person's intellectual capacity is not suitable for the money. If the guardian requests the network service provider to return the data, the people's court shall support it. According to the above regulations, recharge games for minors under the age of eight do not have legal effect and need to be represented and agreed by their parents or guardians, otherwise they can request a refund. For minors over eight years old, if the amount of recharged games is relatively large, their age, intelligence level, consumption ability and consumption level do not match, and the consent and recognition of their parents or guardians is not obtained, the parents and guardians can request a refund. B. Does the burden of proof for minors’ recharge lie with the parents? In real life, some parents apply for a refund, but not 100% of them can get a refund, which involves legal issues of proof. So, does the burden of proof to prove that minors top up money lies solely on the parents or the legal supervisor? In this regard, Lin Lihua said that when such cases arise, the court will pay attention to and review: the registrant and user or actor of the game account, the validity of the contract, the degree of fault of both parties, the circumstances and behavior of the loss, and the behavior of minors. Age and intelligence, etc. may also be considered, as well as the type of game, the living environment in which the minor grew up, and the financial status of the family. In view of the fact that most online games on the market currently have anti-addiction mechanisms for minors, and thresholds are set from the beginning of registration and login, including signing electronic contracts, real-name authentication, and even face recognition, etc. In terms of game recharge, some game platforms set The monthly recharge limit has been set. After exceeding the limit, face authentication is required to continue recharging and other measures. Therefore, for gaming platforms, they mainly fulfill their obligation to supervise evidence. Regarding whether minors should return evidence of consumption, they must ask parents for evidence based on the principle of who claims the responsibility. Otherwise, there may be legal risks of refusing to refund or losing the lawsuit. C. If parents fail to effectively supervise their children’s payment behavior, will they have to bear the loss? Lin Lihua said that in the case of minors recharging games, although the electronic agreement between the game and the live broadcast platform generally stipulates that the recharging user must confirm that he is over 18 years old and has full capacity for civil conduct, or the minor user needs to use the recharging service. Obtain the consent of the guardian and other terms. However, in real life, it is common for minors to steal their parents’ identity information or directly use their parents’ accounts, which makes it difficult to verify the identity of minors. The convenient mobile payment function does not require identity verification. Therefore, in such service contract disputes , it is more difficult for a minor to prove that his behavior is not legally binding. Even if it is proven that it is a minor’s consumption behavior, the court will evaluate whether the parents are negligent in management, or whether the parents can prove that they do not bear legal responsibility. . Even if it is proved that the consumption is by minors, the court will evaluate whether the parents neglected management, or failed to limit the time and method of their children playing online games, failed to adopt reasonable methods to manage identity information and passwords, and failed to adopt positive educational methods to guide their children to establish good habits. Reasonable consumption concepts, etc., and then judge parents to bear corresponding responsibilities.