For some time now, there have been frequent incidents of minors giving high amounts of tips and spending on online platforms, which have attracted attention. At present, although most online platforms have taken technical measures to restrict minors' consumption, in practice, some measures have become mere formalities and have not effectively prevented minors' irrational consumption behavior. Can parents recover the full amount of a large donation from their child? The Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing has concluded a network service contract dispute arising from a 17-year-old girl making large donations on a live streaming platform. 17-year-old Xiao Liu is a real name registered user of a certain entertainment online live streaming platform, and his account is linked to his father's bank card for payment. ”Judge Han Jixian, the presiding judge, introduced that within a year, Xiaoliu had accumulated over 450000 yuan in recharge, which was used to reward broadcasters on the platform. At first, after discovering Xiaoliu's abnormal consumption, the platform took consumption restriction measures on his account, stopping the account's recharge and reward permissions. Subsequently, Xiaoliu impersonated a guardian and communicated with the platform's customer service over the phone. The platform confirmed the lifting of all restrictions through the phone, which led to the occurrence of subsequent large-scale recharge consumption. The act of a child making large deposits or donations without the consent of their guardian during consumption is invalid. ”After discovering abnormal consumption records, Xiaoliu's father, as Xiaoliu's legal representative, filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the platform return the recharge and reward funds. As a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, Xiaoliu's large-scale recharge and reward activities were not approved by the guardian in advance, and the guardian clearly refused to recognize them afterwards. Therefore, the transaction is invalid. ”Assistant judge Wang Yuanzhe said. Since the transaction is invalid, does it mean that the platform needs to refund the full amount? The Civil Code clarifies the principle of responsibility allocation after the invalidity of civil legal acts: the actor should return the property, and if it cannot be returned, compensation should be given at a discounted price; Each party shall bear the losses in proportion to their fault. Han Jixian said that in this case, although the platform effectively identified Xiaoliu's abnormal consumption behavior and took certain restrictive measures, it only relied on telephone communication confirmation when lifting the restrictions, and did not adopt a more rigorous and effective review method, which allowed minors to easily avoid the platform's restrictive measures. In addition, the platform lacked continuous tracking and supervision of the relevant accounts, allowing minors' accounts to engage in long-term and continuous large-scale consumption behavior. According to regulations such as the Law on the Protection of Minors and the Regulations on the Protection of Minors' Networks, the platform has failed to fulfill its reasonable review obligations and is at fault, therefore it should bear responsibility. In addition, Xiaoliu is addicted to online tipping and even impersonates a guardian to communicate with platform customer service to lift consumption restrictions, which is a certain fault; Xiaoliu's parents, as guardians, have mishandled his property and failed to effectively supervise his child's consumption behavior, and they also have certain responsibilities. Based on the degree of fault of all parties involved, the court ultimately ruled that the platform would refund Xiaoliu 240000 yuan. (New Society)