Online Store Division Case
Case Recap
In October 2014, Wuhua County People’s Court of Meizhou, Guangdong, heard a divorce case in which the couple sought division of six online stores jointly operated during their marriage.
Difficulties in case settlement arose from multiple factors: the value of virtual property is hard to ascertain; there are no dedicated laws explicitly governing the protection of virtual property in China; and some online stores were registered under the names of third parties.
Fortunately, the couple and the relevant registered third parties all reached a consensus on the ownership of the stores. The presiding judge conducted patient mediation, and the two parties eventually divorced by voluntary agreement. As for the ownership of the online stores, each party was awarded three stores respectively.
Case Comment
The core difficulty of this case lies in that the online stores operated by the couple fall within the scope of virtual property. As China has not yet established a sound legal system for virtual property protection, the court, while affirming the proprietary attribute of virtual property, is often unable to render a judgment on the confirmation of virtual property ownership due to lack of statutory basis. For this reason, such disputes are mostly resolved through court mediation in judicial practice.
-
In relevant precedents where the specific value of virtual property cannot be determined, stolen virtual property is usually disposed of by means of restoration to the original state. A typical example is the entertainment service contract dispute wherein Han Lin sued Shanda Interactive Entertainment Limited over the theft of virtual property. The court ordered Shanda to restore the plaintiff’s stolen virtual property.
-
It is necessary to issue relevant judicial interpretations to provide statutory basis for judicial practice. Although the proprietary nature of virtual property has been widely recognized in China’s judicial practice, there is still no legal basis for determining its specific value and ownership.
With the development of science and internet technology, the economic value of virtual property has become comparable to that of physical property. It is therefore suggested that competent authorities formulate judicial interpretations on virtual property as soon as possible, so as to reduce the reliance on case mediation caused by the absence of clear legal provisions.