However, Shenzhen Nanshan Court does not think so. On March 15, Caixin Weekly reported such a thing: in the "Wechat Reading Case" of 20 19 and the "Nanshan Microvision Case" of 20021,two users sued Tencent in Beijing and Harbin respectively for providing their friends' information to other Tencent-owned applications without permission, accusing Tencent of violating its personal information rights and privacy rights respectively. During the trial, the micro-vision case was handed over to Shenzhen Nanshan Court for trial after several rounds of jurisdiction competition. In the end, the users of the WeChat reading case tried by the Beijing Internet Court won the case, and Tencent won the case of Nanshan Microvision.
Not for me, but for Nanshan Pavilion.
Some media have counted the data of China Judgment Document Network: In the past three years, the Nanshan court involved Tencent's announcement of the judgment, and Tencent won the case with a success rate of 94.3%, among which Tencent won the case as plaintiff 100%(4 1) and 389(4 15) as defendant, with a success rate of 93.73%. Tencent's winning rate in Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court was as high as 98. 15%, its winning rate as plaintiff was 8 1.8%(9 cases), and its winning rate as defendant was 100%(97 cases).
Therefore, whether a good friend relationship is a personal relationship depends on whether the jurisdiction is in the Shenzhen court. This has already been written into the WeChat software license and service agreement. As long as you use WeChat, you have to agree to go to Nanshan for a lawsuit.
The ingenuity of high-tech enterprises has been used in various "agreements". As long as the jurisdiction is won, the trend of the case tends to favor the enterprise.
Chen Hangping, an associate professor at Tsinghua University Law School, wrote in "Is there really a Nanshan Pizza Hut? "No matter what kind of case, Tencent can use its pre-signed agreement to avoid legal risks, collect fixed evidence through the background afterwards, and use the actual combat experience accumulated in many lawsuits to effectively prosecute or respond. The high success rate is reasonable and does not constitute suitable evidence for accusing judicial corruption and judicial local protection. "
Chen Hangping also believes that although the personnel list of Tencent's legal department is not published online, there are many judges from the former Nanshan District Court, Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court and even the Guangdong Provincial High Court. Under the social background of China, this kind of personnel exchange will inevitably form an inexplicable "relationship" network. Not only Tencent, but also other big MAC companies have a high success rate in local courts.
You know, at the beginning, capital appeared as harmless, paid taxes, promoted the local economy and promoted employment. Later, people gradually discovered that the goal of capital is to pursue the maximization of profits. When there is a contradiction between consumer rights and the maximization of capital profits, the winner will often be "jurisdiction".
The same case, the obvious fact, the courts in Harbin and Shenzhen gave two opposite answers. There are legal experts beating drums and cheering in the capital, and the news media waving flags and shouting, which is not terrible. However, when judicial power controls judicial results, the power of capital has undoubtedly penetrated into public power, affecting the basic rules of society.
It's chilling.