与旧规相比有何变化？ 10月11日，《最高人民法院关于互联网法院案件管辖的规定》（以下简称《规定》）发布， 将"网络数 据权属、侵权、合同纠纷"等四类网络案件调整为由互联网法院集中管辖。《规定》自2025年11月1日起 施行。目前我国共有北京、杭州、广州三家互联网法院。 2018年9月，最高人民法院制发文件明确互联网法院审理案件范围，互联网法院集中管辖所在市的辖区 内应当由基层人民法院受理的网络购物、网络服务、网络金融借款、网络小额借款、网络著作权、网络 域名、网络侵权、网购产品责任、网络公益诉讼等十一类纠纷。 在此基础上，《规定》新增四类网络案件由互联网法院集中管辖。将 "网络数据权属、侵权、合同纠 纷"、"网络个人信息保护、隐私权纠纷"、"网络虚拟财产权属、侵权、合同纠纷"、"网络不正当竞争纠 纷"纳入互联网法院管辖范围。《规定》施行后，北京市、杭州市、广州市市辖区内应由基层法院审理 的上述案件将分别由三家互联网法院集中管辖。 此外，对于算法歧视、算法操纵、算法诱导沉迷、算法违法处理数据等现象，最高法研究室负责人认 为，此次调整有助于推动系统治理，从而促进平台经济、数字经济有序健康发展。 此次案件管辖调整 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy surrounding NetEase's game account deletion policy has sparked significant backlash from players, who feel that the automatic deletion of accounts after one year of inactivity is unfair and constitutes a violation of their rights [1][2][3]. Group 1: Account Deletion Policy - NetEase's service agreement states that if a user does not log in for 365 consecutive days, the platform reserves the right to delete the account and all associated game data [2]. - This clause was first introduced in the updated agreement in November 2022 [2]. - Many players reported not receiving any notification regarding the deletion, and customer service responses were vague, further aggravating player dissatisfaction [3]. Group 2: Player Sentiment - Players expressed strong emotional responses, highlighting that their accounts contain years of memories and real monetary investments, equating the deletion to losing personal property without notice [4]. - Some players argued that even if they stop playing, it does not mean they relinquish their rights to their accounts [4]. Group 3: Legal Perspectives - Legal experts suggest that if game companies fail to provide reasonable notification or set unreasonable deletion timelines, such clauses could be deemed invalid and infringe on users' property rights [5]. - Courts have recognized game accounts as "virtual property," which includes not only usage rights but also certain ownership and disposal rights, especially concerning monetary investments made by players [5][6]. Group 4: Industry Comparisons - NetEase maintains that users do not own their accounts but have "limited usage rights," allowing the platform to enforce the deletion policy [6]. - In contrast, other major gaming platforms like Steam and Epic do not delete accounts or purchased content due to inactivity, indicating a different approach to user rights [6]. Group 5: Regulatory Context - Starting January 2025, California's digital goods protection law AB 2426 will require platforms to clarify that users receive "licenses" rather than ownership, aiming to prevent consumer deception [9]. - Despite this, the law does not authorize platforms to revoke user content without notification [9]. Group 6: Emotional and Ethical Considerations - Players desire to retain their accounts even if they are not actively playing, emphasizing the emotional and financial investments involved [10]. - There are calls for platforms to provide notifications, grace periods, and data backup mechanisms before account deletion, highlighting the need for more humane and transparent communication from companies [10][11].