Beijing Internet Court Clarifies Virtual Property Protection in Platform Redemption Disputes
Published 26 February 2026
Yu Du
On 24 February 2026, the Beijing Internet Court released a representative case clarifying whether redeemable benefits attached to “trendy goods” sold on an online platform, such as theme park tickets and merchandise vouchers, constitute protected virtual property, and who should bear the loss when such benefits can no longer be fulfilled due to changes in platform operations.
Case History
The plaintiff, Mr. Liu, was a registered user of an app operated by Company J. Beginning in April 2022, the platform launched “trendy goods” under a new “2.0 version” and “tier-based collectible” model. These goods were not merely physical items stored in the platform’s warehouse; they were bundled with various redeemable benefits, including exchange rights for theme park tickets (such as Shanghai Disneyland access), vouchers for trendy shoes and apparel, and trend points” that could be redeemed for physical goods or no-threshold coupons.
Mr. Liu purchased a large number of such goods through exchanges and transactions on the app. Company J later adjusted its redemption model and suspended resale services, resulting in certain unredeemed benefits becoming unrealizable.
The plaintiff also sued Company H, arguing that it shared the same legal representative and registered address as Company J and received payments for the transactions, thus constituting corporate personality commingling and joint liability.
Neither defendant submitted a defense, and the case was tried in absentia.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The court held that Company H was not a proper defendant. Although the two companies shared certain registration details, there was no evidence of financial commingling, profit transfer, or abuse of shareholder control. Corporate personality confusion was therefore not established.
As to Company J, the court found defective performance but not a fundamental breach. Under the user agreement, the platform was obligated to provide consignment, resale, and recall services. The suspension of resale services was inconsistent with the contract, the notice period was too short, and quantitative limits on replacement options could impair users’ lawful rights.
However, the platform retained the recall function, some benefits had already been realized, and the trading model allowed for rule adjustments under the user agreement. As a long-term user, the plaintiff could reasonably anticipate service modifications. Therefore, no fundamental breach was found.
Regarding the nature of the unredeemed benefits, the court relied on Article 127 of the PRC Civil Code, which provides protection for data and online virtual property. It held that online virtual property refers to network-based assets with proprietary value embodied in electronic records, including accounts, shops, game characters, and similar interests. The plaintiff’s unredeemed exchange rights possessed measurable economic value and thus qualified as protected virtual property.
However, goods purchased after the announcement suspending redemption services did not give rise to legitimate expectation interests and were excluded from compensation.
Damages
The plaintiff sought return of the purchase price, technical service fees, and compensation for performance interest losses. The court rejected the claim for the purchase price because the physical goods remained in storage and could be recalled. The technical service fees were agreed transaction fees and not proven to result from the breach.
Nevertheless, Company J was required to compensate for performance interest losses caused by suspending resale services without proper explanation. Considering the timing and quantity of purchases, the nature of the unfulfilled benefits, and the degree of breach, the court awarded RMB 5,000 in damages. The judgment has taken effect.
Judge’s Remarks
The court emphasized that unredeemed exchange rights, such as theme park vouchers, possess proprietary value and fall within the scope of protected virtual property. In “goods + rights” models, consumers purchase not only physical products but also attached redemption benefits. While frequent rule adjustments may stimulate sales and secondary trading, they also pose legal and sustainability risks.
Platform operators must strengthen contractual compliance and fulfill reasonable notification obligations when adjusting rules. Improper notice leading to user losses requires compensation. At the same time, users should recognize that exchange rights may constitute virtual property and may seek contractual remedies when legitimate interests are impaired.
Comment
This case is significant in that it reaffirms judicial protection of redeemable digital benefits as virtual property under the Civil Code and clarifies the boundary between defective performance and fundamental breach in platform-based transactions. It signals that innovative “goods + rights” business models must operate within a framework of contractual stability and transparent notice. Platform operators bear heightened compliance and disclosure obligations when adjusting rules, while users are encouraged to safeguard their rights through contractual remedies. Overall, the case provides clearer legal guidance for balancing innovation and user protection in the digital economy.
Case History
The plaintiff, Mr. Liu, was a registered user of an app operated by Company J. Beginning in April 2022, the platform launched “trendy goods” under a new “2.0 version” and “tier-based collectible” model. These goods were not merely physical items stored in the platform’s warehouse; they were bundled with various redeemable benefits, including exchange rights for theme park tickets (such as Shanghai Disneyland access), vouchers for trendy shoes and apparel, and trend points” that could be redeemed for physical goods or no-threshold coupons.
Mr. Liu purchased a large number of such goods through exchanges and transactions on the app. Company J later adjusted its redemption model and suspended resale services, resulting in certain unredeemed benefits becoming unrealizable.
The plaintiff also sued Company H, arguing that it shared the same legal representative and registered address as Company J and received payments for the transactions, thus constituting corporate personality commingling and joint liability.
Neither defendant submitted a defense, and the case was tried in absentia.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The court held that Company H was not a proper defendant. Although the two companies shared certain registration details, there was no evidence of financial commingling, profit transfer, or abuse of shareholder control. Corporate personality confusion was therefore not established.
As to Company J, the court found defective performance but not a fundamental breach. Under the user agreement, the platform was obligated to provide consignment, resale, and recall services. The suspension of resale services was inconsistent with the contract, the notice period was too short, and quantitative limits on replacement options could impair users’ lawful rights.
However, the platform retained the recall function, some benefits had already been realized, and the trading model allowed for rule adjustments under the user agreement. As a long-term user, the plaintiff could reasonably anticipate service modifications. Therefore, no fundamental breach was found.
Regarding the nature of the unredeemed benefits, the court relied on Article 127 of the PRC Civil Code, which provides protection for data and online virtual property. It held that online virtual property refers to network-based assets with proprietary value embodied in electronic records, including accounts, shops, game characters, and similar interests. The plaintiff’s unredeemed exchange rights possessed measurable economic value and thus qualified as protected virtual property.
However, goods purchased after the announcement suspending redemption services did not give rise to legitimate expectation interests and were excluded from compensation.
Damages
The plaintiff sought return of the purchase price, technical service fees, and compensation for performance interest losses. The court rejected the claim for the purchase price because the physical goods remained in storage and could be recalled. The technical service fees were agreed transaction fees and not proven to result from the breach.
Nevertheless, Company J was required to compensate for performance interest losses caused by suspending resale services without proper explanation. Considering the timing and quantity of purchases, the nature of the unfulfilled benefits, and the degree of breach, the court awarded RMB 5,000 in damages. The judgment has taken effect.
Judge’s Remarks
The court emphasized that unredeemed exchange rights, such as theme park vouchers, possess proprietary value and fall within the scope of protected virtual property. In “goods + rights” models, consumers purchase not only physical products but also attached redemption benefits. While frequent rule adjustments may stimulate sales and secondary trading, they also pose legal and sustainability risks.
Platform operators must strengthen contractual compliance and fulfill reasonable notification obligations when adjusting rules. Improper notice leading to user losses requires compensation. At the same time, users should recognize that exchange rights may constitute virtual property and may seek contractual remedies when legitimate interests are impaired.
Comment
This case is significant in that it reaffirms judicial protection of redeemable digital benefits as virtual property under the Civil Code and clarifies the boundary between defective performance and fundamental breach in platform-based transactions. It signals that innovative “goods + rights” business models must operate within a framework of contractual stability and transparent notice. Platform operators bear heightened compliance and disclosure obligations when adjusting rules, while users are encouraged to safeguard their rights through contractual remedies. Overall, the case provides clearer legal guidance for balancing innovation and user protection in the digital economy.