Chinese courts allow heirs to inherit accounts of deceased gamers — multiple cases spanning years establish precedent for digital ownership of games, in-game items, and microtransactions

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

While most of the Western world has been grappling with publishers and big tech companies about digital ownership, a Redditor who claims to be married to a Chinese lawyer and certified Chinese-English translator said that multiple Chinese families have successfully sued “for the right to inherit their deceased relatives’ game accounts.” u/Slawrfp shared summaries of three rulings favoring a gamer’s estate with regards to digital ownership on a subreddit. These cases go beyond game ownership, too, as they also tackled digital assets, in-game purchases, Bitcoin, and even social media accounts.

Chinese gamers have successfully managed to sue for the right to inherit their deceased relatives’ game accounts
 from r/pcmasterrace

“Chinese courts view game accounts and microtransaction purchases as something of monetary value, and therefore gamers have rights related to those assets,” u/Slawrfp wrote. “Chinese courts reject the idea that standard non-transferability clauses can stop you from inheriting or bequeathing a game or even individual microtransactions (of the same nature as CS:GO knives or skins in other games) and have made this ruling in multiple cases.”

u/Slawrfp cited several cases — the first one is called “the Golden Blade case," which arose out of a dispute between two parties in 2009. The issue started when the wife (Li Lan) of a deceased gamer (Lu) wanted to sell the “Golden Blade” he acquired in the game Zhengtu, a now-defunct MMORPG. However, Lu required the cooperation of his “in-game wife,” Yang Yuan, to get the item, and therefore argued that she should get ownership.

Latest Videos From

In the end, the court ruled that since Lu put in the effort, paid for internet access, loaded up with in-game credits, and that buyers were willing to acquire the item for around RMB 50,000 (around $7,350 at the current exchange rate), then it had the attributes of property and could be inherited by his legal wife. Aside from that, DeHeng Law Offices [machine translated] said that the “in-game marriage” between Lu and Yang had no legal bearing, so Li Lan stands as the inheritor of Lu’s properties. But because Yang spent a similar effort in helping Lu to acquire the artifact, its ownership belongs to both, so both Li Lan and Yang Yuan are entitled to 50% each of the asset’s price.

Another case in 2024 tackled a deceased user’s Bitcoin holdings, a gaming account worth nearly $30,000 (RMB 200,000), and a social media account. According to Chinese lawyer Wang Lianghua on the Chinese social media platform Toutiao [machine translated], the inheritor’s lawyer argued that virtual property has attributes of legal property because it could be traded, has value, and could even generate profits, which meets the “scarcity, disposal, and value” definitions of property. On the other hand, the platforms holding these digital assets argued that ownership belongs to them based on the agreements that the user accepted when signing up for the account.

The court judged that virtual assets, including Bitcoin, game equipment, social media commercial rights, and domain names, among others, are included in the deceased’s estate and are inheritable, and that operation of social media accounts can also be passed on to the heirs. However, private content, such as chat records and other “purely personal interests,” cannot be passed on and are instead archived by their respective platforms. Lastly, the “inheritance prohibition” included in most license agreements is invalid as they violate statutory rights — platforms are required to assist with inheritance requests and could ask for supporting documentation as well as charge reasonable costs.

Aside from these cases, there was another one where a mother lost her son and asked a gaming platform to give her access to his accounts. The court ruled similarly as the previous case, saying that the gamer’s accounts, character data, virtual items, and other assets are virtual property, and thus, inheritable. The company was then obligated to cooperate with the mother and transfer all inheritable rights to her.

These court cases offer a stark contrast in most of the rest of the world, where publishers could cut you off from your media library the moment their licensing contracts expire. The Steam subscriber agreement also prohibits the transfer of a Steam account — and with U.S. courts counting games as digital licenses, then Valve cannot be compelled to pass them on to the user’s heirs. Digital rights are a hot topic among gamers and consumers, especially as many big tech companies transition from selling physical copies of games to going all digital, and preservationists fight to keep game archives alive.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • chaos215bar2
    Meanwhile in the US, you lose your digital assets whenever the company you bought them from very well feels like it.

    In fact, you even lose access to digital hardware, as we've seen multiple companies alter terms and issue firmware updates that will effectively brick your bought-and-paid-for hardware until you pay up for a subscription.
    Reply
  • voyteck
    I can imagine headlines like this:

    "Teen killed his own father for a digital account in a popular game"
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    voyteck said:
    I can imagine headlines like this:

    "Teen killed his own father for a digital account in a popular game"
    He had the Sword of A Thousand Truths, I had to do it!
    https://i.imgur.com/ifQZsAw.jpeg
    Reply
  • usertests
    Epic dead gamer moment
    Reply
  • PEnns
    "...and to my favorite, Son Number One, I leave...."
    Followed by gnashing of teeth, loud gasps and colorful lawyers offering to dispute the will.....
    😂😉😠
    Reply
  • John Kiser
    chaos215bar2 said:
    Meanwhile in the US, you lose your digital assets whenever the company you bought them from very well feels like it.

    In fact, you even lose access to digital hardware, as we've seen multiple companies alter terms and issue firmware updates that will effectively brick your bought-and-paid-for hardware until you pay up for a subscription.
    I assume you are talking about movies from SturdioCanal removed from Sony's Playstation store... this is sadly a case of things working as intended. Sony stopped selling video content in the Playstation store 5 years ago.

    This was a case of rights contracts not being removed and because Sony doesn't actually own StudioCanal they had to remove it and since digital now requires DRM they will atop working once the drm licenses expire for those movies.

    Sony is basically in a rock and a hard place situation here. Either they literally throw money dowm the drain to keep the licenses for movies they no longer sell for 5 years now. StudioCanal could have simply changed their terms to allow downloads for people that already bought the movies, but they didnt so there wssnt really any choice other than throw money down the drain to save face
    Reply
  • snlacks
    John Kiser said:
    I assume you are talking about movies from SturdioCanal removed from Sony's Playstation store... this is sadly a case of things working as intended. Sony stopped selling video content in the Playstation store 5 years ago.

    This was a case of rights contracts not being removed and because Sony doesn't actually own StudioCanal they had to remove it and since digital now requires DRM they will atop working once the drm licenses expire for those movies.

    Sony is basically in a rock and a hard place situation here. Either they literally throw money dowm the drain to keep the licenses for movies they no longer sell for 5 years now. StudioCanal could have simply changed their terms to allow downloads for people that already bought the movies, but they didnt so there wssnt really any choice other than throw money down the drain to save face
    or executives who sold something they didn't own or have the right to sell in the first place could be imprisoned for fraud.
    Reply
  • DarkXork
    John Kiser said:
    I assume you are talking about movies from SturdioCanal removed from Sony's Playstation store... this is sadly a case of things working as intended. Sony stopped selling video content in the Playstation store 5 years ago.

    This was a case of rights contracts not being removed and because Sony doesn't actually own StudioCanal they had to remove it and since digital now requires DRM they will atop working once the drm licenses expire for those movies.

    Sony is basically in a rock and a hard place situation here. Either they literally throw money dowm the drain to keep the licenses for movies they no longer sell for 5 years now. StudioCanal could have simply changed their terms to allow downloads for people that already bought the movies, but they didnt so there wssnt really any choice other than throw money down the drain to save face

    That wasn't what happened. It's understandable when a digital storefront stops selling items after their license to sell them expires but that shouldn't give them the right to go into someone's library and delete the content they paid money for. That is what Sony/PlayStation did. They didn't just stop selling those films, they completely deleted them from people who had already bought them. Anywhere else that would be considered theft.
    Reply
  • Will808
    Hmm maybe we should copy this from them. Lol
    Reply
  • erq
    Valve will not allow you to pass on your games after you die. People with thousands of dollars worth of Steam games don't actually own them
    Reply