A legal case is unfolding in China that could set a precedent for the entire entertainment industry. A private citizen has filed a class-action lawsuit against four of the country's largest technology and gaming companies — Tencent, NetEase, miHoYo, and 37 Interactive Entertainment. The uniqueness of the case lies not in the scale of the claims, but in their symbolic nature: the plaintiff is seeking compensation of only 10 yuan (approximately 120 rubles).
Symbolic Lawsuit Against Tech Giants
The main goal of the father, whose son became immersed in virtual reality with negative consequences for his health, is not enrichment, but to draw the attention of authorities and the general public to the problem of gaming addiction. By choosing a minimal claim amount, the man emphasizes that his motivation is educational and social in nature. He seeks to prove that current measures to limit gaming time for minors are not working properly, despite strict state regulations.
Medical History: From 1868 Hours to a Nervous Breakdown
According to court documents, the plaintiff's son spent a colossal amount of time in front of device screens since March 2024 — 1868 hours. This averages more than two hours daily, which, in the father's opinion, became the catalyst for a serious crisis. The situation culminated in an incident in May when the teenager, suffering a nervous breakdown against the backdrop of a gaming marathon, suddenly developed a fever. In a state of confused consciousness, he took an excessive dose of medication, which nearly ended in tragedy.
Legal Deadlock: Jurisdiction Dispute
Despite the seriousness of the accusations, the court proceedings have encountered bureaucratic obstacles. Initially, the hearing was scheduled for July 6, but representatives of the defendants — Tencent, NetEase, miHoYo, and 37 Interactive — challenged the court's jurisdiction. The companies stated that this body is not authorized to hear their cases, leading to the postponement of the session. Specific game titles that caused the addiction are not mentioned in the lawsuit, but the fact of the publishers' participation indicates a systemic nature of the claims against protection mechanisms.
Contradictory Data
In the course of analyzing the case, discrepancies in the interpretation of facts are revealed. On the one hand, the father claims that the protection systems for minors proved to be insufficiently effective, allowing his son to play for more than 1800 hours. On the other hand, gaming companies will likely insist that they comply with all legislative norms, and exceeding time limits is the result of the actions of third parties or bypassing verification systems. Until the court makes a decision, both parties remain in a legal field where the technical capabilities of platforms clash with the reality of human addictions.
