Contract Characterization and Restitution Rules for Live-Streaming Tipping with Marital Community Property

In the act of tipping gifts during live streaming, a live streaming service contract is formed between the user and the streamer. A critical factor affecting the validity of this contract is whether an improper relationship exists between the user and the streamer. The determination of such an improper relationship should be made from two aspects: first, whether a personal relationship exists between the parties; and second, whether that relationship is improper in nature. When it is determined that an improper relationship exists between the user and the streamer, the live streaming service contract between them is void for being contrary to public policy, and the streamer shall return the tipped property to the user. Even if the contract between the user and the streamer is valid, whether ownership of the tipped property is transferred should be determined by whether the tipped property constitutes community property and whether it "obviously exceeds the ordinary consumption level of the household." If it does not exceed that threshold, the disposition is authorised, and the streamer may acquire ownership of the tipped property. If it exceeds that threshold, the streamer may acquire ownership through the doctrine of bona fide acquisition only if the streamer acted in good faith and the live performance provided constituted reasonable consideration.As to the object of restitution, the streamer cannot return the virtual gifts tipped by the user; instead, restitution should be made in virtual currency or cash. As to the amount of restitution, when the contract is held void, full restitution shall be made; when the contract is held valid but the streamer does not meet the conditions for bona fide acquisition, full restitution is generally required in principle, but the court may deduct the ordinary consideration for the streamer's live streaming services, or may order partial restitution at its discretion if taking into account the negligence of the tipper’s spouse in aggravating the loss.