【#初中生电玩店充1.5万店方被判退1万# 法院：家长未及时察觉亦有责任】从深圳市中级人民法院获 悉，小星（化名）是一名12岁的初中生，在香港就读，每日往返深港两地。为方便生活，其母亲张女士 特意办了一张香港银行卡，偶尔让小星自己去取款，一来二去，小星就悄悄记下了银行卡密码。2023年 6月，小星路过一家电玩店，因随身携带的现金不够，多次偷拿银行卡取款充值，单次充值金额从几百 元到上千元不等。张女士发现此事后，多次与该电玩店协商退款无果，遂将该电玩店诉至法院，请求判 令该店全额退还1.5万元。经审查，小星的充值行为不属于纯获利益或与其年龄、智力相适应的民事法 律行为，其法定代理人张女士明确不予认可，因此涉案充值行为应依法认定无效。本案中，小星已将充 值款项全部消费，店方无法直接返还对价，需结合过错程度划分责任，电玩店明知小星系未成年人，未 直接联系监护人核实消费意愿，甚至允许员工代为充值，未履行对未成年人消费的审慎注意义务，存在 明显过错；张女士作为监护人，未妥善保管个人银行卡，对小星近半年的持续消费行为未及时察觉，在 财产管理与监护职责上存在疏漏，亦有责任。综上，法院综合双方过错及款项实际消费情况，判决电玩 ...

Group 1 - The incident involves a seller on a trendy toy e-commerce platform demanding a mother to submit a video of her physically punishing her child as a condition for a refund, which raises serious ethical and legal concerns [1][2] - The platform's response indicates that the seller's demands were not part of official policies but rather personal communications, acknowledging the inappropriate nature of the seller's request [1][2] - The seller's actions may constitute "incitement to infringement," as they compel parents to harm their children to prove their innocence, which could violate laws against domestic violence and infringe on minors' rights [2][3] Group 2 - The platform has a responsibility to implement proper oversight and management of sellers to prevent such incidents, and merely suggesting "negotiation" is seen as neglecting regulatory duties [2][3] - There is a need for clearer rules and standards regarding refunds and disputes involving minors to enhance operational efficiency and protect both buyers and sellers [3] - Parents are encouraged to take responsibility for monitoring their children's online activities and instilling proper financial values to prevent such situations from arising [3]

Core Points - The case involves a minor, Xiao Tong, who made excessive purchases from a store operated by A Wei, a member of a fan support team for a celebrity, totaling over 60,000 yuan [1] - The court ruled that the contract between Xiao Tong and A Wei was invalid due to Xiao Tong's status as a minor and the lack of consent from her legal guardian [1] - The ruling highlights the responsibility of guardians to monitor minors' online activities and the obligation of service providers to protect minors' rights [2] Summary by Sections - **Legal Context**: The court found that Xiao Tong, being only 14 years old, lacked the legal capacity to engage in the transactions without parental consent, rendering the contract invalid [1] - **Regulatory Framework**: The case references a 2021 directive from the Central Cyberspace Administration of China that prohibits minors from engaging in support and consumption activities related to celebrities [1] - **Responsibility and Liability**: The court determined that A Wei, as the service provider, bore primary responsibility for the invalid contract due to encouraging minors to engage in irrational spending, while Xiao Tong's guardian also had some fault for not adequately supervising her online activities [2] - **Financial Outcome**: The court ordered A Wei to refund approximately 43,600 yuan to Xiao Tong, reflecting a shared responsibility for the situation [2] - **Recommendations**: The ruling emphasizes the need for guardians to closely monitor minors' online spending and for entertainment companies to adhere to legal standards to protect minors [2]