Court Upholds Ban on Streamer for Fabricated 'Real Life' Stories
A Chinese streamer's attempt to have his account reinstated was rejected by a court, which found his "real life" stories to be fabricated and in violation of platform rules.
The Beijing Internet Court has dismissed an appeal by streamer "Xiao Jin" seeking to have his account reinstated on an online platform. The account was permanently banned in November 2025 for allegedly using "negative and untrue content to attract attention" through fabricated "real life" stories.
Xiao Jin's streaming content involved "audience connection" segments where he and viewers would share dramatic narratives, including tales of "mysterious pendants" and "treasure hunting." These stories were often presented as real events happening to viewers and were serialized to maintain audience engagement. The platform cited these practices as violations of its terms of service.
The streamer sued the platform's operator, a technology company, arguing the ban was unjustified. The company defended its action, stating that Xiao Jin's content, which included "scripted drama and exaggeration," was contrary to core socialist values and that it had a duty to moderate content.
During the court proceedings, evidence including video footage was presented, showing Xiao Jin creating a suspenseful atmosphere and using suggestive language. The streamer was unable to provide clear details about the identity of the viewers he connected with or the specifics of the stories shared, leading the court to conclude the narratives were fictional.
The court ruled that the platform's decision to ban Xiao Jin was appropriate. It noted that the streamer had a history of warnings and previous short-term bans for similar offenses, indicating awareness of platform rules. The court affirmed the platform's right and obligation to manage its content and users, concluding that the ban was a proportionate response to the streamer's actions and did not exceed reasonable limits. The streamer's lawsuit was entirely dismissed, and the judgment is now final. The court emphasized that the internet should not be a space for fabricated drama or conspiracy-mongering to gain traffic, but rather a platform for genuine talent and interaction.