The Legal Validity and Qualitative Analysis of Game Training Contracts
2025 07/22
In recent years, the online gaming industry has developed rapidly, and the business phenomenon of game training, which operates on the edge of the law, has become increasingly common. Many players choose to pay someone to play their game account on their behalf in order to quickly upgrade and obtain rare equipment. However, this behavior involves the transfer of account control, violation of game rules, and may even involve cheating, leading to ongoing disputes over the legal validity and nature of the contract for proxy training. This article will analyze the actual precedents of the court, explore why the contract for proxy training is judged invalid, how to handle the money after the contract is invalid, and further discuss how to determine the legal nature of the contract if it is valid.
1、 What is game training
Game training refers to the behavior of non account registered users, based on profit arrangements, using manual operations, script programs, or simulated input devices to replace account owners in completing game tasks, upgrading levels, obtaining equipment, or providing services such as finished accounts, virtual item transfers, and account rentals. For example:
I'll hand over my account to you, and you can help me rank and level up
Use a script program to flash coins on the machine at night
Transfer the full level account to someone else for use
Renting a premium account from others to participate in limited time events
The above behaviors all belong to the category of game training.
2、 Invalidation of Game Training Contract
The determination of the legal effectiveness of game training usually involves two levels of legal relationships:
1. The relationship between game service providers and agency management behavior
2. The civil legal relationship formed between the provider and the recipient of the training service due to the training behavior
This article mainly explores the latter, namely the contractual relationship and legal characterization between the two parties of the training agency.
1. Infringement of the commercial and user interests of game development platforms
In the case of Hu 0115 Min Chu 54395 (2023), the court held that "the act of game training has essentially infringed upon the commercial interests of game development and operation platforms and the legitimate rights and interests of ordinary users
Weakening players' normal willingness to consume, reducing game activity and user stickiness
Affects platform revenue and may even accelerate game shutdowns
Occupying a large amount of game resources, squeezing the gaming space and experience of ordinary players
May cause the depreciation or even zeroing of virtual assets for ordinary users
2. Violation of laws and regulations
Conducting bulk account training activities for commercial purposes may involve the following legal issues:
Causing unfair competition against online game operators
Violation of relevant regulations on personal information protection
Violation of regulations on the protection of minors
The judgment (2023) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 47362 holds that "the contract (game account transfer) concluded by both parties has broken the regulatory order of the state on real name authentication of online users, increased the risk of the state's control over cyberspace security, increased the possibility of game accounts being accessed and used by minors, and violated the legislative intention of protecting the rights and interests of minors
3. Violation of public order and good customs or public order and good customs in the virtual world
The Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate the law or public order and good customs. In judgments (2022) Jing 02 Min Zhong 9463 and (2023) Gui 0981 Min Chu 4559, the court held that "the virtual world also has its own rules of public order and good customs. Honorary titles or rewards that reflect the user's gaming strength and experience should be personally completed by the user. Any attempt to 'take shortcuts' through monetary transactions or cheating tools should not be supported or encouraged by the law
4. Disrupt the order of game management
The game platform is based on the principle of "one person, one account" to establish an account system aimed at maintaining fairness and traceability. However, the practice of proxy training leads to:
Separation of actual users and registered entities of game accounts
Causing disputes over account ownership
Increase platform customer service and regulatory costs
Causing the tracking of the game subject to fail
5. Illegal or unethical purpose of the contract
If the act of proxy training is aimed at evading rules and making profits, the purpose of the contract itself is illegal and inappropriate, which in turn affects the effectiveness of the contract.
3、 The handling of expenses after the contract becomes invalid
According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, "After a civil legal act is invalid, revoked, or determined to be ineffective, the property obtained by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or is unnecessary to return, it shall be compensated at a discounted price. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered as a result; if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibilities
In judicial practice, there are differences in the handling of invalid training contracts by courts:
1. Full refund mode
In the cases of (2022) Jing 02 Min Zhong 9463 and (2023) Gui 0981 Min Chu 4559, the court ruled that the training service fee should be fully refunded, but the litigation costs should be borne by both parties.
2. Partial return mode
According to the judgment of (2023) Hu 0112 Min Chu 47362, the plaintiff only refunded half of the account transfer fee, and (2023) Hu 0115 Min Chu 54395, the Chinese Court ordered the return of 70% of the account purchase fee.
Practical analysis: The judicial approach of partial return mode is worth discussing. The contract price is essentially a unilateral payment by the principal and should not be directly used as the basis for determining "joint losses". A more reasonable approach would be:
Firstly, return the full contract price and implement the principle of restoring the original state
The necessary cost expenditures incurred by the training agent due to the performance of the contract (such as server rental fees, platform commissions, etc.) can be classified as compensation losses
The litigation costs, as indirect losses caused by the invalidity of the contract, can be shared by both parties in proportion to their fault
This approach not only conforms to the legislative intent of Article 157 of the Civil Code, but also balances the interests of both parties.
4、 The legal nature determination of the contract for proxy training under valid circumstances
If the contract for proxy training does not violate laws, administrative regulations, or public order and good customs, it shall be a valid contract. According to the Civil Code and existing judicial practices, training contracts may be classified into the following types of contracts:
1. Contract/Service Contract
If we understand proxy training as a paid service, such as upgrading ranks, clearing copies, or using "achieving results" (such as "becoming the king within 3 days") as the core of the contract, it is closer to the characteristics of the contract and reflects the model of "completing work delivering results paying remuneration".
2. Sales Contract
If proxy training involves the transfer of virtual items such as accounts, game equipment, skins, etc., it is more inclined towards buying and selling contracts. For example, the training account itself is provided by the training agent, who delivers the entire product number that meets a certain level to the client, which is more in line with the characteristics of ownership transfer in the sales contract.
3. Entrustment Contract
If the training contract reflects the characteristics of "authorization by the principal and performance of specific affairs by the trustee", and does not require a specific level or effect, then it tends to be in the form of a commission contract.
4. Labor Contract
In the case of individual behavior and no obligation to deliver results, where the main focus is on operational labor, such as requiring only certain operations on the mouse or keyboard without requiring too much personal thinking, it can be defined as a labor contract.
Conclusion
The legal effectiveness of game training contracts lies in whether they violate platform rules, public order and good customs, and national regulatory order. In the case of invalid contracts, the standard for judicial handling is not yet unified and needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis. In the case where a contract is deemed valid, its legal nature can be classified into contracting, service, commission, sale, and even labor contracts based on specific agreements and performance methods. In the future, with the improvement of legal supervision in the gaming industry and the accumulation of judicial judgments, the effectiveness judgment and type attribution of contract agreements will become increasingly clear, providing clearer compliance boundaries for related behaviors.
1、 What is game training
Game training refers to the behavior of non account registered users, based on profit arrangements, using manual operations, script programs, or simulated input devices to replace account owners in completing game tasks, upgrading levels, obtaining equipment, or providing services such as finished accounts, virtual item transfers, and account rentals. For example:
I'll hand over my account to you, and you can help me rank and level up
Use a script program to flash coins on the machine at night
Transfer the full level account to someone else for use
Renting a premium account from others to participate in limited time events
The above behaviors all belong to the category of game training.
2、 Invalidation of Game Training Contract
The determination of the legal effectiveness of game training usually involves two levels of legal relationships:
1. The relationship between game service providers and agency management behavior
2. The civil legal relationship formed between the provider and the recipient of the training service due to the training behavior
This article mainly explores the latter, namely the contractual relationship and legal characterization between the two parties of the training agency.
1. Infringement of the commercial and user interests of game development platforms
In the case of Hu 0115 Min Chu 54395 (2023), the court held that "the act of game training has essentially infringed upon the commercial interests of game development and operation platforms and the legitimate rights and interests of ordinary users
Weakening players' normal willingness to consume, reducing game activity and user stickiness
Affects platform revenue and may even accelerate game shutdowns
Occupying a large amount of game resources, squeezing the gaming space and experience of ordinary players
May cause the depreciation or even zeroing of virtual assets for ordinary users
2. Violation of laws and regulations
Conducting bulk account training activities for commercial purposes may involve the following legal issues:
Causing unfair competition against online game operators
Violation of relevant regulations on personal information protection
Violation of regulations on the protection of minors
The judgment (2023) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 47362 holds that "the contract (game account transfer) concluded by both parties has broken the regulatory order of the state on real name authentication of online users, increased the risk of the state's control over cyberspace security, increased the possibility of game accounts being accessed and used by minors, and violated the legislative intention of protecting the rights and interests of minors
3. Violation of public order and good customs or public order and good customs in the virtual world
The Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate the law or public order and good customs. In judgments (2022) Jing 02 Min Zhong 9463 and (2023) Gui 0981 Min Chu 4559, the court held that "the virtual world also has its own rules of public order and good customs. Honorary titles or rewards that reflect the user's gaming strength and experience should be personally completed by the user. Any attempt to 'take shortcuts' through monetary transactions or cheating tools should not be supported or encouraged by the law
4. Disrupt the order of game management
The game platform is based on the principle of "one person, one account" to establish an account system aimed at maintaining fairness and traceability. However, the practice of proxy training leads to:
Separation of actual users and registered entities of game accounts
Causing disputes over account ownership
Increase platform customer service and regulatory costs
Causing the tracking of the game subject to fail
5. Illegal or unethical purpose of the contract
If the act of proxy training is aimed at evading rules and making profits, the purpose of the contract itself is illegal and inappropriate, which in turn affects the effectiveness of the contract.
3、 The handling of expenses after the contract becomes invalid
According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, "After a civil legal act is invalid, revoked, or determined to be ineffective, the property obtained by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or is unnecessary to return, it shall be compensated at a discounted price. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered as a result; if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibilities
In judicial practice, there are differences in the handling of invalid training contracts by courts:
1. Full refund mode
In the cases of (2022) Jing 02 Min Zhong 9463 and (2023) Gui 0981 Min Chu 4559, the court ruled that the training service fee should be fully refunded, but the litigation costs should be borne by both parties.
2. Partial return mode
According to the judgment of (2023) Hu 0112 Min Chu 47362, the plaintiff only refunded half of the account transfer fee, and (2023) Hu 0115 Min Chu 54395, the Chinese Court ordered the return of 70% of the account purchase fee.
Practical analysis: The judicial approach of partial return mode is worth discussing. The contract price is essentially a unilateral payment by the principal and should not be directly used as the basis for determining "joint losses". A more reasonable approach would be:
Firstly, return the full contract price and implement the principle of restoring the original state
The necessary cost expenditures incurred by the training agent due to the performance of the contract (such as server rental fees, platform commissions, etc.) can be classified as compensation losses
The litigation costs, as indirect losses caused by the invalidity of the contract, can be shared by both parties in proportion to their fault
This approach not only conforms to the legislative intent of Article 157 of the Civil Code, but also balances the interests of both parties.
4、 The legal nature determination of the contract for proxy training under valid circumstances
If the contract for proxy training does not violate laws, administrative regulations, or public order and good customs, it shall be a valid contract. According to the Civil Code and existing judicial practices, training contracts may be classified into the following types of contracts:
1. Contract/Service Contract
If we understand proxy training as a paid service, such as upgrading ranks, clearing copies, or using "achieving results" (such as "becoming the king within 3 days") as the core of the contract, it is closer to the characteristics of the contract and reflects the model of "completing work delivering results paying remuneration".
2. Sales Contract
If proxy training involves the transfer of virtual items such as accounts, game equipment, skins, etc., it is more inclined towards buying and selling contracts. For example, the training account itself is provided by the training agent, who delivers the entire product number that meets a certain level to the client, which is more in line with the characteristics of ownership transfer in the sales contract.
3. Entrustment Contract
If the training contract reflects the characteristics of "authorization by the principal and performance of specific affairs by the trustee", and does not require a specific level or effect, then it tends to be in the form of a commission contract.
4. Labor Contract
In the case of individual behavior and no obligation to deliver results, where the main focus is on operational labor, such as requiring only certain operations on the mouse or keyboard without requiring too much personal thinking, it can be defined as a labor contract.
Conclusion
The legal effectiveness of game training contracts lies in whether they violate platform rules, public order and good customs, and national regulatory order. In the case of invalid contracts, the standard for judicial handling is not yet unified and needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis. In the case where a contract is deemed valid, its legal nature can be classified into contracting, service, commission, sale, and even labor contracts based on specific agreements and performance methods. In the future, with the improvement of legal supervision in the gaming industry and the accumulation of judicial judgments, the effectiveness judgment and type attribution of contract agreements will become increasingly clear, providing clearer compliance boundaries for related behaviors.
