Home > News content

The amount refunded by the game company to the minor recharge should not be "discounted"

via:新浪科技     time:2022/5/26 6:08:17     readed:62

Sea condensation

In recent years, the relevant state departments have successively issued regulations to prevent minors from addicting to online games and to limit the amount of recharge for minors. In the past few days, many parents have reported to the media that during the epidemic period, children used online class time to steal games with their parents' mobile phones and recharge tens of thousands of yuan, and software application platforms and online game companies delayed or even refused to refund for various reasons. Multiple companies "discounted" refunds. (China Consumer Daily, May 25)

Children play games to recharge caused a lot of problems. In this regard, relevant parties have taken multiple measures to prevent it, and the State Press and Publication Administration issued the "Notice on Preventing Minors from Addicting to Online Games" in 2019, which not only prevents minors from addicting to online games, but also restricts the amount of recharge. The Guiding Opinions issued by the Supreme People's Court make it clear that where persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, without the consent of their guardians, participate in online paid games and other means to spend money that is inappropriate for their age and intelligence, and the guardian requests that the network service provider return the money, the people's court shall support it.

After the implementation of the above provisions, positive results have been achieved. For example, under the guidance of policies, game companies have established and improved anti-addiction systems, which have curbed minors' addiction to online games to a certain extent and recharged their funds. For another example, some game companies have also refunded the amount of their children's recharge in full after parents submitted relevant evidence. However, due to the problems of "difficulty in contacting customer service", "difficulty in presenting evidence", and deliberate delay, it is not easy for parents of children to apply for refunds.

Although it is not easy to get a full refund, such parents are still lucky, and other parents encounter the game company's refusal to refund or "discount" refund after their children play the game to recharge. The encounter of Mr. Wu in Guizhou can explain the problem, the child recharged 40,000 yuan for the first time, and the game company only refunded 33,000 yuan; the child recharged again, and some game companies only refunded 65%, and some game companies said that they applied for a refund for the second time and did not refund.

The reason is that some companies have set a maximum refund limit of 65%, and some companies say that "a family can only accept a game refund once" and push the responsibility to the guardian. It is undeniable that the guardian has an unshirkable responsibility for the recharge of the child, but the practice of the game company "discounting" the refund or refusing the refund has no legal basis, on the contrary, it may also violate the current policies and legal provisions, which is worth paying attention to.

According to the Notice on Preventing Minors from Addicting to Online Games, there are restrictions on the amount of a single recharge or the amount of monthly recharge. If the game company strictly implements this regulation, the children in the news cannot recharge tens of thousands of yuan in a short period of time. If the game enterprise does not strictly comply with the regulations, it is an improper profit, it should be refunded without discount, and if the circumstances are serious, it should also be handled by the relevant departments in accordance with laws and regulations.

Article 19 of the Civil Code stipulates that minors over the age of eight are persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, and the implementation of civil juristic acts shall be represented by their legally-designated representatives or with the consent and retroactive recognition of their legally-designated representatives. Obviously, if the legal representative neither knows nor consents to the child playing the game recharge, then the income obtained by the game enterprise from the child playing the game recharge is not reasonable and legal, and should be returned to the parents one cent or another.

The above-mentioned SPC guidance also does not leave a hole for such refunds to be "discounted". The reason why game companies do it is entirely for their own interests, less money to parents, they can make more money. This reflects the supremacy of the interests and responsibilities of the relevant game companies. In this regard, parents should seek a full refund through the channel of complaint and prosecution; the relevant departments should also "discount" this refund and take countermeasures to improve the system "patch".

Whether it is administrative supervision or judicial trial, this kind of refund "discount" behavior cannot be tolerated, otherwise, game companies will also tempt and connive minors to play games to recharge to make profits; minors may fall deeper and deeper, affecting physical and mental health; related families will face economic losses. Therefore, from the relevant policies to judicial opinions, a clear signal should be sent: children play games to recharge, and refunds are never allowed to be "discounted".

translate engine: Bing

China IT News APP

Download China IT News APP

Please rate this news

The average score will be displayed after you score.

Post comment

Do not see clearly? Click for a new code.

User comments