Due to Tencent Holdings (00700. HK) has a strong legal team and has always been known as "Nanshan Pizza Hut". Recently, a piece of execution information let netizens find that Nanshan Pizza Hut even lost.
On April 23, Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tencent") was listed by the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court as an executor, case number (2021) Yue 0305 Zhi 6990, and the subject of execution was 25 yuan.
Screenshot from China Executive Information Disclosure Network
Only involving the execution target of 25 yuan, it looks more like a dispute between the two sides, so what is behind it?
Red Star Capital Bureau found through the Tianyancha APP and the China Judgment Document Network that Tencent was planted in an online contract service dispute this time, and 25 yuan should be the case acceptance fee.
Because WeChat was blocked, the two sides went to court
Tencent's claim is that it is suspected of publishing gambling information
According to the Tianyancha APP, Tencent was listed as an executor, which was related to the network service contract dispute case between Wu and Tencent, and the relevant case number was (2019) Yue 03 Min Zhong No. 21753, which was judged by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province.
According to the verdict, Wu is the real-name registered owner of the mobile phone number 150××××5933, and he registered a WeChat account with this mobile phone number.
On July 15, 2018, Tencent suspended Wu Jun's WeChat account for a period of 2 days, and could apply to unblock it on the 17th of that month, because it was "complained about by many people and confirmed to have violated the law".
Tencent said that it received a report from a user, and the account was suspected of publishing gambling information, and the report was verified to be true. After the first instance trial, Tencent also provided a record of the violation information, that is, the chat content reported by the WeChat ID on July 15, 2018, as follows:
Others: France is going home tonight
Others: 0:1
Others: It's impossible to score just one goal
Others: 4-4, 1000 blocks
The whistleblower (referring to Wu's use of WeChat): I bought France to win
Others: Who collects the ball
Others: I collect
However, Wu did not confirm this.
The court of first instance held that the evidence submitted by Tencent was insufficient to prove that Wu violated the provisions of the service agreement and published information suspected of gambling. Because the violation information record is an edited text record, not an original record automatically generated by the system, it is not enough to prove that the message was sent by the WeChat account involved in the case.
Wu claimed: No gambling information was released
Just sent an Alipay newcomer invitation QR code in the circle of friends
Regarding Tencent's claim to be banned because of the suspected release of gambling information, Wu did not confirm this, saying that he had not released gambling information, but only sent an Alipay newcomer invitation QR code in the circle of friends.
According to the facts determined by the court of first instance, on July 15, 2018 (that is, the day he was banned), Wu Jun shared the QR code of Alipay newcomer invitation in the WeChat circle of friends.
In this regard, Tencent said that Wu shared the QR code of Alipay newcomer invitation in violation of the provisions of Article 8.1.2.4 of the service agreement, which stipulates: "Publishing, transmitting, disseminating harassment, advertising information, excessive marketing information and spam information or containing any sexual or sexual implications." ”
In addition, Wu said that he contacted a WeChat friend to help him unseal the WeChat account but was unsuccessful, and also contacted Tencent through various ways to apply for unblocking, all of which were unsuccessful, and provided relevant proof.
In this regard, Tencent did not confirm, saying that it had provided a channel for self-service unblocking, and Wu did not follow the correct self-service unblocking steps to apply for unsealing.
The court of first instance held that this was a dispute case over a network service contract. Since the evidence submitted by Tencent is not enough to prove that Wu violated the provisions of the service agreement and published information suspected of gambling, it should unblock the WeChat account involved in the case and restore Wu's right to use. At the same time, the loss costs and mental loss fees claimed by Wu have no basis in law and are not supported.
In the end, the court of first instance ruled that Tencent would unseal the WeChat account involved in the case within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment; reject Wu's compensation and other litigation claims; and the case acceptance fee of 25 yuan should be borne by Tencent. The court of second instance upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
That is to say, this time Tencent was listed as the executor, in fact, because of the case acceptance fee of 25 yuan.
It is worth mentioning that the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province, specifically pointed out in the judgment: "With the rapid development of the Internet today, Tencent really needs to consider adding a WeChat self-service unblocking channel, so that users have a variety of self-service unblocking channels to choose from, improve the processing process, and improve the user experience." At the same time, when disputes arise with users, they should patiently and exhaustively explain to users and continuously improve and improve service methods. ”
Red Star News reporter Yang Peiwen
Edited by Yang Cheng
(Download Red Star News, there are prizes for the newspaper!) ）
