Group 1 - The court ruled that the plaintiff's act of tipping the streamer was a genuine expression of intent, and the contract formed with the platform was valid and enforceable [1][4] - The plaintiff, Liu, claimed he was "induced" to tip a total of 20,000 yuan due to misleading practices by the streamer, but the court found no evidence to support this claim [2][4] - The platform had implemented various consumer protection measures, including warnings about impulsive tipping and reminders to spend within one's means [3][4] Group 2 - The court emphasized that adults are responsible for their consumption decisions, and the plaintiff's actions were voluntary and within the normal range of consumer behavior [4] - The court dismissed all claims from the plaintiff, ordering him to bear the case acceptance fee of 150 yuan, and the judgment has taken effect [4]