Online shopping, online game top-ups, live streaming tips... Currently, there are more and more for online consumption. At the same time, refund disputes caused by minors making random top-ups, accidental orders, and induced consumption are also increasing. The principle of "the victim the burden of proof" has left some parents in a predicament of difficulty in proving, difficulty in getting refunds, and difficulty in protecting their rights. According to relevant legal provisions, consumption behaviors carried out by minors with limited civil capacity without the consent of their guardians, which are inappropriate for their age and intelligence, shall be invalid if the guardians do not ratify, and platforms should refund the relevant funds. Many game platforms have set up special refund channels for minors' top-ups. However, in reality, the reasons merchants give for refusing for minors' consumption are varied, one of the most common being "unable to prove it was operated by a minor". Searching for complaints related to "minors' refunds" on "People's Complaint" platform of People's Daily, nearly one-third are related to online game top-ups. Mr. Chen from Zhoushan City, Province, told the reporter about his experience in protecting his rights. A 13-year-old child from a friend's family, while Mr. Chen had left his phone at the friend's house, secretly topped up more than 60,000 yuan in the "Super Egg-Laying Duck" WeChat mini-program game and also deleted the payment records. Mr. Chen only discovered the abnormal funds when he went to spend them. This game has a "Minor Game Guardianship" service specifically to minors' top-up issues. Following the prompts, Mr. Chen first submitted preliminary review materials such as the ID cards and birth certificates of the guardian and the minor; he then five review materials including the guardian information form, the ward information form, and the application for parental guardianship of minors in online games, as well as a series of documents such as-up bills, ID card photos of the real-name registered person on the bills, and proof of relationship with the minor. However, seven days later, he was told thatthis top-up behavior does not match the characteristics of minors' top-ups, and it cannot be determined that it was operated by a minor". Helpless, Mr. complained to the local Press and Publication Bureau. Subsequently, staff from the game company proactively called to communicate, but still refused the refund on the grounds that "the top-ups mostly late at night, which does not match the daily routine of minors", and there was no further response after that. Some merchants, although they do not require the provision of multiple materials and only need a one-time proof, find that the seemingly simple proof is even harder to obtain. Ms. Li from Chengdu, Sichuan Province, is a "designer toy" who often buys Pop Mart designer toys on her phone. Her 9-year-old daughter accidentally clicked a push link and entered a Douyin live room, directly making a-free payment of 1,199 yuan. Less than a minute after the payment, Ms. Li discovered it and immediately applied for a refund. Initially, the merchants customer service refused the refund on the grounds that "designer toy blind box products are special products and do not support seven-day no-reason returns". After Ms. Li repeatedly that it was an "accidental purchase by a minor", the customer service changed their tune, stating that "video evidence of the minor's accidental purchase" needed to be provided verification and processing. This left Ms. Li not knowing whether to laugh or cry, "If I had video evidence of the accidental purchase, would I still let the child make an purchase?"

In addition to setting excessively high thresholds for supporting evidence, many merchants refuse refunds on the grounds that "the product attributes special." Ms. Lei from Wuhan, Hubei, discovered that her 11-year-old daughter had used her phone without permission to buy a concert ticket on Damaicom for 1,799 yuan. Five minutes after the payment, Ms. Lei found out and immediately applied for a refund. However, the ticketing customer service repeatedly refused refund, claiming that "minors attending concerts also need to purchase tickets normally, one ticket per seat" and "concert tickets carry cultural services and possess characteristics such as time-sensitivity scarcity." Ms. Lei believes that the merchant is deliberately avoiding the legal validity of minors' consumption behavior, conflating "whether they can attend the concert" with "whether they buy tickets without permission." More notably, some platforms have failed to implement basic obligations such as real-name authentication and facial verification, leaving regulatory loopholes that provide opportunities for inducing topups. Mr. Lin from Fuzhou, Fujian, told reporters that after his 10-year-old cousin posted a singing video on Huisen (a social app), she was targeted by a stranger. The stranger praised her "beautiful singing" to lure the child into an unmonitored and unrecorded private room, then imperson a public official, step by step deceiving and intimidating the child into topping up nearly 3,000 yuan for another person's account. The mobile app only requires one-click login with a phone number, and top-ups and consumption can be made without real-name or facial verification. After discovering this, Mr. Lin first submitted materials as guardian information and proof of guardianship, top-up details, and a video of the child recounting the incident through the "Refund for Minors' Accidental Top-ups" within the app. However, because the child could no longer remember the account that was topped up, the platform's customer service refused to handle the induced top-up part on grounds that "no corresponding consumption record could be found." Left with no choice, Mr. Lin filed a lawsuit, and the court ordered the platform to refund 50% of amount. Reporters reviewed multiple cases and found that in refund disputes involving minors, parents are pushed to the front line of providing evidence, constantly supplementing materials, filing complaints to multiple, and communicating repeatedly. An important reason for the frequent disputes is that platforms and merchants have not strictly implemented real-name authentication and facial verification, and have been negligent in supervising points such as induced top-ups and private rooms. Some platforms even fail to perform any secondary verification during large-payment processes. The identity verification obligation that should be borne by the platforms ultimately shifted entirely to the parents for ex post facto evidence provision.

"The difficulty in obtaining refunds for minors' online consumption lies in the challenge of identity verification—the accounts are registered in the parents names, but the actual operations are carried out by the children," said Liu Junhai, a professor at the School of Law, Renmin University of China. He noted that minors use their parents' accounts for spending, which makes it impossible for platforms to identify the true identity of the operator. Furthermore, consumption records may be deleted by the children, and transaction might not be enabled, making it difficult to gather evidence. Additionally, some adults impersonate minors to request refunds, leading platforms to generally adopt a cautious or even skeptical attitude toward parents' claims However, Liu Junhai pointed out that platforms possess key data such as the account's backend IP address, device model, and operational habits, meaning they actually hold more evidence the parents. This information asymmetry puts parents at a disadvantage. According to the "Regulations on the Protection of Minors in Cyberspace," platforms have a "gatekeeper" responsibility They should connect to a unified electronic identity authentication system and establish a dynamic verification mechanism for the real identity information of online live streamers, rather than relying solely on a one-time during registration. Further measures should also be taken to reasonably limit the amount minors can spend, establish norms for tipping, and prohibit inducing consumption. "In addition, the evidence- and after-sales mechanisms should be optimized: if a platform fails to implement dynamic verification, leading to a dispute, it should be presumed that the platform is at fault. At the time, a green channel for refunds should be established, unified refund standards should be formulated, and the proportion of responsibility should be clearly defined to avoid disputes," Liu Junhai said.Outlook New Era)