Core Points - The incident involving a new user logging into a celebrity's account due to a "reissued number" highlights potential vulnerabilities in account security and privacy protection [1][4] - Legal interpretations suggest that online accounts can be considered a part of personal property, with implications for privacy and inheritance rights [6][7] - The responsibilities of telecom operators and platforms in managing account security and user data are under scrutiny, particularly regarding the reissuing of phone numbers [8][9] Group 1: Incident Overview - A new user received a verification code for a music platform and accessed a celebrity's account, revealing issues with number reissuance by telecom operators [1] - The platform confirmed the incident and took immediate action to unlink the account from the new user's phone number [1] Group 2: Legal Implications - Accounts are viewed as virtual property under the law, with user rights and privacy protections outlined in civil law [6][7] - The handling of account access after the original user’s death raises questions about privacy and inheritance rights [7] Group 3: Responsibilities of Telecom Operators and Platforms - Telecom operators have a duty to ensure that reissued numbers are not linked to important accounts, though this is not an absolute guarantee [8] - Platforms must take necessary measures to protect user data and may face legal consequences for failing to do so [9][10]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has issued new regulations for internet courts, centralizing jurisdiction over four types of internet-related cases starting from November 1, 2025 [1][2] - The new regulations expand the jurisdiction of internet courts to include cases related to data ownership, personal information protection, virtual property, and unfair competition [2][4] - Traditional internet-related cases have been removed from the jurisdiction of internet courts, which will now focus on new and complex cases [3][4] Summary by Sections Changes Compared to Previous Regulations - The new regulations add four categories of cases to the jurisdiction of internet courts, including data ownership disputes and personal information protection [2] - Previously, internet courts handled eleven types of disputes, but the new rules streamline the focus to more complex and emerging issues [2][3] Professional Capacity of Internet Courts - Internet courts have developed specialized judicial capabilities to handle new types of internet cases, having previously dealt with significant cases like the first national big data product ownership case [4] - The courts have a team of judges experienced in both law and technology, ensuring effective handling of disputes involving data and algorithms [4] Long-term Considerations - The concentration of jurisdiction in major digital economy hubs like Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou allows for a more effective response to cutting-edge legal issues [5] - The new regulations aim to clarify legal standards and unify the application of laws across different courts, addressing inconsistencies in the treatment of data-related disputes [5][6] - The adjustments are expected to enhance judicial protection of personal information and virtual property, while also regulating new forms of unfair competition in the digital space [6]

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].