The validity of the agreement on the restriction of free transfer of online game accounts and the identification of the value of virtual property

Wang v. Shanghai network Technology Co., LTD., Xia network service contract dispute

keyword

Game account real name authentication network virtual property value

Brief of the case

Plaintiff Wang Mou registered an account in the mobile phone network game operated by the defendant Shanghai Network Technology Co., Ltd. with his phone number, and accumulated several million yuan during the game. The service agreement between the original and the defendant states: "The Platform has never authorized users to obtain the platform account from any third party through purchase, acceptance of gifts or other means, nor has it authorized users to transfer, lend or share the platform account to other third parties." Any legal consequences and liabilities arising from the implementation of the foregoing acts shall be borne by the user." Later, the outsider player transferred 6,000 yuan to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff informed the player of the game account and password, and delivered the account to him for use. A week later, the plaintiff returned $6,000 to the outside player. Shortly thereafter, the defendant registered the game account in the name of a third party, so the plaintiff appealed to the court for an order to terminate the service contract between the original and the defendant, and asked the defendant to refund the corresponding top-up fee.

Reason and result of judgment

The court held that the plaintiff reached a service agreement with the defendant when logging into the game, and the agreement does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and is legally binding on both parties. Since the game account involved in the case has been registered under the name of a third party, the plaintiff has lost the control of the game account and the purpose of the contract can no longer be achieved, so the plaintiff can exercise the right to rescind the contract according to law. If both parties breach the contract, they shall bear their respective liabilities. If a party breaches the contract and causes losses to the other party, and the other party is at fault for the loss, the corresponding amount of compensation for losses may be reduced. In this case, both the original and the defendant violated the service agreement, and the plaintiff traded the game account without the authorization of the defendant; The defendant did not follow the service agreement and registered the game account change to another person's name without authorization, and as the game account information management controller, the defendant did not provide the real-name registration information and change registration information of the game account registration so far, which is a lot of omissions in management. In assessing the plaintiff's loss, the market value of the game account should be taken into account. Since the plaintiff continued to recharge and purchase ingots, and used the virtual currency to purchase items during the game process to improve its game experience, the defendant has provided consideration services for the plaintiff's recharge, so the plaintiff's loss cannot be determined by the recharge amount. Combined with the facts of this case, the market value of the game account involved, that is, the plaintiff's loss, should be comprehensively determined to be 6,000 yuan, and according to the original and the defendant's respective faults, it is determined that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff 4,200 yuan.

Typical meaning

This case involves the cancellation of an online game service contract and compensation for the loss of account value. Involving the common digital economy cases, the responsibility of online game operators, the value of online virtual property identification and other issues, in order to clarify the rights and obligations of game users and game operators, identify the reasonable value of online game accounts, and promote the healthy and orderly development of online game industry are of reference significance.

First, the validity of the format clause "Prohibited game account trading". In this case, the online game account is the only identity certificate for the user to enter the game, corresponding to the game characters, virtual props and other information data in the account, which belongs to the network virtual property. The provisions of Article 127 of the Civil Code include the network virtual property into the scope of legal protection, but no other laws and regulations have made detailed provisions on the protection of online game property. According to the principle of autonomy of will, for the handling of disputes involving online game accounts and equipment, the scope of rights and obligations of both parties shall be determined by the online game service agreement signed between the game user and the operator. In this case, the substance of the format clause in the service agreement is "Users are prohibited from transferring their accounts without the authorization of the platform". The restriction clause is a necessary measure taken by the operator to meet the requirements of the online game real-name system regulation, and does not exclude users from enjoying the service and other legitimate rights to dispose of the game account. There is no violation of the mandatory provisions of the effectiveness of laws and regulations or public order and good customs, and its effectiveness should be recognized.

Second, the regulatory obligations of online game operators. In the online game industry, game operators are not only game service providers, but also need to bear special legal and social responsibilities such as operation, management and maintenance, so as to protect the legitimate rights and interests of law-abiding game users. In order to strengthen the market supervision of online games, create a good industry ecology and market environment, and prevent teenagers from being addicted to online games and excessive consumption, Article 1 of the Notice on Preventing Minors from being addicted to online games issued by the General Administration of Press and Publication requires that real-name authentication must be required when registering online games. Therefore, in addition to ensuring the health of online game content, ensuring the safety of online game environment, information security and other obligations, online game operators should also implement real-name authentication measures for users and fulfill the corresponding duty of review care. In this case, both the original and the defendant violated the agreement of the service agreement, the player bought and sold the game account without authorization, resulting in the loss of the account, the online game operator did not follow the service agreement and arbitrarily registered the game account in the name of others, and there were omissions in management and failed to fulfill the obligation to review the real-name registration of the game account. As the actual controller of network data, it is also wrong to abuse its technical advantages and provide negative evidence. Both parties constitute a breach of contract and should bear corresponding responsibilities for the loss caused by the termination of the contract due to the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract.

Third, the value of the network virtual property. As a virtual property of network, game account is not only the object of data integration in game system, but also reflects the time and money cost invested by game players. The meanings of "recharge amount", "transaction value" and "market value" of online game accounts are different, and "recharge amount" is not exactly equivalent to "market value". The property value of game accounts can be identified in combination with whether there is a publicly recognized trading platform, voluntary trading behavior between players, and other different situations, so as to determine the actual loss caused by the loss of game accounts.