The case of netizens suing Tencent in Nanshan Court is about to be decided

Recently, Zhu, Huang, He and others sued Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. for a dispute over the computer software copyright licensing contract. The case was heard in the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen City (Figures 1 and 2). The Guangdong Public Interest Litigation Network (www.gdgyssw.com.cn) assigned volunteer lawyer Liu Hua to represent netizens in the lawsuit.

Cause of the incident

From January to April 2008, many netizens suddenly discovered that the passwords for their QQ numbers that they had used for many years were wrong and they were unable to log in normally. Many netizens have discussed this incident in major forums, blogs, and QQ groups. By entering the keywords "QQ account lost, account lost in April" in various search engines (google, baidu, etc.), you can find the information of a large number of netizens. Feedback information shows the wide impact of this incident. The characteristics of lost accounts are: from January to April, the second-generation password protection data of a large number of netizens’ QQ numbers were inexplicably modified, and the first-generation password protection data was bizarrely upgraded to second-generation password protection. The password was changed at the same time, but no one logged in to the number. Netizens immediately organized materials to file a complaint with Tencent's backend system, but what is strange is that no netizen could pass the appeal, and even those who had successfully appealed many times could not get their numbers back. Many of these lost QQ numbers are 5-6 digits with auspicious meanings, and most of them are member QQ numbers used to pay for consumption (some even consume thousands of yuan) through bank recharge and other methods.

The incident

After netizens discovered that their QQ numbers could not be retrieved, they immediately reported the situation to the customer service department of Tencent and asked why QQ could not be retrieved. The reason why the customer service reply failed was that it was appealed by other people. Some netizens even provided proof of successful appeals and even the original password from 8 years ago, but the customer service department still said there was insufficient evidence.

Because Tencent emphasizes the importance of ID cards in password protection settings, the ID number is the final certificate for retrieving your QQ number and cannot be modified. As a result, some netizens brought their ID cards from all over the country to Tencent's headquarters in Shenzhen to request the return of their numbers after repeated appeals failed, but they were still rejected.

In June 2008, angry netizens organized documents to complain to the Guangdong Public Interest Litigation Network, hoping to safeguard their rights through judicial channels. In just a few days, the Guangdong Public Interest Litigation Network received tens of thousands of Lawyer Chen Jun, editor-in-chief of the Guangdong Public Interest Litigation Network, took the complaints from netizens very seriously and immediately assigned volunteers Liu Hua and Hong Danna to handle the matter.

In July, Liu Hua immediately contacted Tencent’s legal department and sent a lawyer’s letter requesting a reply. Unfortunately, Tencent took a tough stance and refused to reply.

In August, the Public Interest Litigation Network selected a few representatives (about 30 people) with sufficient evidence among many netizens, and compiled the netizens’ membership cards, ID copies, space screenshots and other information into I mailed written materials to Tencent’s legal department and asked for an explanation as to why the QQ appeal could not be approved, but was rejected again!

In September, Liu Hua took the information of 30 netizen representatives to the court in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, where the defendant was located, to sue the company. Due to procedural and other reasons, only 11 netizens’ lawsuits were accepted, and the court filed the case. Defining the case as an intellectual property case and charging a high litigation fee of 1,000 yuan per case, netizens were forced to withdraw the lawsuit.

In October, netizens reorganized the information, raised funds, and re-selected He, Xu, Huang and others with sufficient evidence to re-indict on their behalf. The court accepted it.

On December 9, the lawsuit, which had gone through many twists and turns, finally opened for hearing in the Seventh Tribunal of the Nanshan District Court in Shenzhen.

Hearing Focus

1. Who is the original applicant? Does providing evidence become an obstacle to safeguarding rights?

According to Tencent’s articles of association, “The ownership of the QQ number belongs to Tencent. Netizens only have the right to use it, and the right to use it belongs to the original applicant.” But the problem lies in this so-called “original applicant” How can it be proved? During the trial, netizens provided their own "historical passwords", "space screenshots", "QQ membership cards", "honorary certificates issued by Tencent", "membership certificates signed by Ma Huateng", "password-protected ID cards that cannot be modified", etc. A series of evidence materials (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6). Tencent failed to produce any evidence.

In this regard, netizens believe that the "original applicant" cannot prove it at all. At present, the only record is Tencent's back-end system. Tencent emphasizes that the password protection of the ID card certificate cannot be modified. But Tencent refused to provide this information.

2. Tencent’s integrity is questionable

During the trial, netizens provided sufficient evidence, but Tencent’s agent denied all the netizens’ evidence, and space screenshots , member consumption records and other information were denied, and the membership cards, honorary certificates and other information provided by netizens were denied by saying that they had "never seen it". The most shocking thing was that the netizen showed the 2001 version of the "QQ Customer Service Agreement" in court. Staff from Tencent's legal department actually said that "it is a printout and the authenticity cannot be confirmed" to avoid court proceedings. "The authenticity of the customer service agreement issued by Tencent's legal department itself cannot be confirmed?" In this regard, netizens believed that this was a rogue Tencent company. His performance is to make things difficult for netizens and has absolutely no integrity at all.

3. Can Tencent's back-end system be independent from the judiciary?

During the trial, Tencent stated that the only way to determine whether the QQ number belongs to Tencent's back-end system is to judge whether the QQ number belongs to Tencent's back-end system. There is no other way (can the Ministry of Justice make a decision?)! However, he refused to provide relevant information, creating obstacles for the court to find out the truth.

4. Can overlord clauses restrain netizens?

During the trial, Liu Hua questioned the 2008 version of the "QQ Customer Service Agreement", which only stipulated what Tencent should do Under what circumstances do you have rights and under what circumstances can you be exempted from liability? However, there is no mention of the rights of netizens. If something goes wrong, what kind of responsibility should Tencent bear?

Tencent’s response to netizens’ questions was very tough.

After the trial, the court organized mediation, but Tencent refused to settle in court. The court will set a date to pronounce the verdict.