After the launch of the “advance on demand” service of the TV drama “Qing Nian Nian Nian”, the legal bloggers “Wu Shengwei WSW” and “logos logics” (real name Lin Jian) sued Beijing iqiyi Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent computer system Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tencent”) for breach of contract and fraud, respectively. < p > < p > after Wu Shengwei won the first instance, the lawsuit between Lin Jian and Tencent has also received the first instance judgment of Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s court. The court ruled that Tencent’s standard terms were invalid, and the contract change of “pay in advance on demand” was not effective for Lin, but the plaintiff’s claim that Tencent had fraud was not supported by the court. Lin said he was considering an appeal and “would add some evidence.”. < / P > < p > it should be noted that the judgments in these two cases are only valid for the plaintiff. If other members of Tencent video and iqiyi think that the “advance on demand” mode infringes on their own rights or has problems, they need to sue separately. < p > < p > according to Lin Jian’s self-report, he bought Tencent’s super VIP members earlier. However, he still had to pay extra for “advance on demand” when watching the TV series “more than one year”. He believed that Tencent had false propaganda. < p > < p > in this case, Lin Jian questioned the two terms of the service agreement for VIP members of Tencent super film and television: a standard clause was set up at the beginning and introduction of the agreement, which agreed that other standard terms in the agreement were not the standard terms in the contract law; at the same time, article 1.7 (Note 1) of the agreement agreed that Tencent could unilaterally change the content of the contract, If consumers do not agree with the change, they can stop using it. Once they continue to use it, it is deemed that they agree with the change. According to the judgment, in view of the first point, the court held that the dispute clause in the agreement excluded the application of the standard terms in the contract law by agreement, which belonged to the situation of “violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations”, and should be deemed as invalid provisions according to law. < / P > < p > in view of whether the continued use is regarded as the change of the user’s agreement contract, the court held that Tencent had not launched the mode of “pay in advance on demand” when the plaintiff became a member of “Tencent Super Video VIP”. After both parties signed the “Tencent super film and television VIP member service agreement”, Tencent added article 3.11.2 (2) to the agreement, and added “advance payment on demand” for members, so that the plaintiff can not watch all the updated episodes when purchasing the “Tencent super movie VIP” member service, which has an impact on its rights. Therefore, Tencent should remind or publicize the additional terms to the plaintiff, and give the plaintiff the right to stop using the “Tencent super VIP” member service when the plaintiff disagrees with the clause. The court held that Tencent did not provide evidence to prove how the plaintiff could stop using the service and refund when it disagreed with the revised content. In fact, the plaintiff could not stop using “Tencent Super Video VIP”, which should be regarded as the contract has not been changed, that is, article 3.11.2 (2) has no effect on the plaintiff. In the end, the Court confirmed that “both parties confirm that the above-mentioned terms are not the clauses of” exempting its liability, aggravating the other party’s responsibility and excluding the other party’s main rights “stipulated in Article 40 of the contract law of the people’s Republic of China, and agree that the legality and validity of the clause are invalid The company compensated Lin Jian’s economic loss by 1500 yuan (notarization fee), and rejected Lin Jian’s other claims. Lin Jian explained that the court’s decision meant that the contract change of “pay in advance on demand” was not effective for itself, and Tencent needed to change the version of the contract. However, the judgment can not be effective on other Tencent video members, and other members can sue separately if they want. < / P > < p > in addition to dissenting from the terms of the membership agreement, Lin Jian also claims that Tencent has fraud in the process of providing services, and should have punitive damages. The price of his purchase of members is 268 yuan, and the compensation amount should be calculated according to three times, totaling 804 yuan. However, the court of first instance held that Tencent did not have fraud and did not support its claim. < p > < p > Lin Jian maintains that Tencent advertises in its advertisements that “hot dramas will be updated in advance, and the completed works will be watched at one breath!” Constitute fraud. The Court pointed out that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff showed that during December 2019, the plaintiff could not watch the full episode of the TV drama “Qingnian Nian” because the TV series had not been updated. However, the evidence provided by Tencent showed that after the “Qingnian” was updated, the “Tencent Super Video VIP” members could watch all the episodes. Therefore, Tencent’s service content and publicity content are consistent. At the same time, the court held that Tencent’s introduction of the “pay in advance on demand” mode was an adjustment in its scope of authority. Although Tencent did not reach an agreement with the plaintiff in the process of launching the “pay ahead on demand” mode, it informed users of the content and layout rules of the “pay ahead on demand” service through various channels when it launched the mode The plaintiff informs the false information or conceals the real situation. In response to the court’s decision, Lin Jian said, “I’m considering appealing to further prove that Tencent video has fraud (that is, the publicity can watch the complete works and watch them in advance, but actually they need to pay extra)” < p > < p > the case of Wu Shengwei suing iqiyi for “advance on demand” mentioned above has already made public the result of the first trial in June this year. In the first instance, Beijing Internet court held that iqiyi’s breach of contract infringed on the rights and interests of users’ golden VIP members, ruled that its format terms were invalid, and “advance demand” had no effect on Wu Shengwei, and ordered iqiyi to pay Wu Shengwei 1500 yuan. Iqiyi has not made any public progress in appealing against the judgment of the first trial. < p > < p > the Beijing Internet court held that iqiyi company’s launching of “pay ahead of demand” service within the scope of satellite TV’s popular TV series and iqiyi’s high-quality homemade drama has violated the agreement of “hot drama preemption” between it and Wu Shengwei, and should bear the responsibility for breach of contract to continue to perform and compensate for losses. At the same time, iqiyi company did not provide an effective channel for VIP members to terminate the contract and refund the VIP membership fee in the “VIP member agreement involved in the case”. As a result, even if the members do not agree with the changes, the right to terminate the VIP member agreement is virtually nonexistent, which constitutes a substantial damage to the rights of VIP members. < / P > < p > the so-called members “continue to use iqiyi platform, it is deemed that they have agreed to change the content”, due to the lack of substantive justice, it can not be regarded as a change agreed by both parties. Similarly, when the user logs in to iqiyi platform, the user’s behavior of logging in can not be regarded as agreeing to the VIP Member Agreement and its changes under the user agreement link. The user’s consent is still subject to express consent. The Court pointed out that “advance on demand” mode itself is not inappropriate, but should not damage the existing rights and interests of members. “When iqiyi continues to launch new service models, the maximization of its platform benefits should be based on compliance with legal provisions.” After that, Wu Shengwei checked and disclosed his login and film viewing records as a member of iqiyi without authorization in the litigation process of the “advanced on demand” case, and sued iqiyi again, claiming that the latter seriously violated his personal privacy. < p > < p > Wu Shengwei once said that iqiyi did not fulfill the complete obligation of informing users about the rights of users, and did not provide users with the right to choose voluntarily when modifying the agreement. “These two points are actually very obvious in many platforms, including Tencent video, Youku, and mango, which are actually the same.”. Tencent has the right to modify the terms of service at any time (including changes, additions and reductions). Once the terms of service are modified, Tencent will give a prompt and / or information through the system Push and / or background announcement, please read it carefully. If you do not agree with the modification of this agreement, you can stop using this service. If you continue to use the service, you will be deemed to have accepted all modifications of this agreement. The updated terms of service shall take effect from the date of publication.