5 thoughts on “Husband rewarded the anchor of 100,000 wives and was rejected. Is there a limit on the anchor?”
Angelica
Now that the Internet is developed and the live broadcast is now very hot, many people make money through live broadcasts. On July 22, 2022, a case occurred in Tianjin. It was a man who rewarded more than 100,000 to the female anchor, and his wife told the female anchor and live broadcast company, asking them to return the cost of reward. Her reason was that her husband did not pass her consent, so she used their husband and wife common property. But the court later determined that her husband's behavior was consumer behavior. Therefore, the woman's claim was rejected, and the woman also found the female anchor to ask her husband to reward money, but the female anchor said she would not return it. Later, after they were sued them to the court, the court thought that her husband was recharging on the Internet platform, and it was a virtual currency purchased to reward. This behavior belongs to the consumption behavior of the entertainment network, and has signed some agreements and contracts with the platform. The also enjoyed spiritual interests, so they have a network service contract. It has legal benefits, not a gift. So every time the man's reward consumption, the service content of the platform and the man was fulfilled. Then the man's rewarding behavior could not be returned, and the man had the ability to civil behavior. He has a long and continuous reward, and he also has independence. So there is no more than the right to family agency, and his wife has no way to ask for this money. Therefore, the request of this woman will be rejected. Regarding the live broadcast, the National Internet Information Office, and the Market Supervision Administration, they have all issued a explanation. The live broadcast is required to be standardized in terms of tax management, and taxation is required, and marketing behavior must be standardized. In other words, it is necessary to standardize the live broadcast of goods or live broadcasts, but it is not denied the live broadcast, and it also shows that there is no upper limit on the anchor's reward.
There is no upper limit limit for reward anchors, but the relevant departments should take corresponding precautions for this matter. One amount that everyone is rewarded every day is more helpful for subsequent control and avoiding this kind of. The situation happened again.
There is a new rule for webcasting, that is, the upper limit is set up by a single reward. For example, many people have no upper limit to reward anchors, and they can just brush up, but now they have changed a lot, because live broadcasts are very confusing, and many people will have many contradictions after rewarding.
Now that the Internet is developed and the live broadcast is now very hot, many people make money through live broadcasts. On July 22, 2022, a case occurred in Tianjin. It was a man who rewarded more than 100,000 to the female anchor, and his wife told the female anchor and live broadcast company, asking them to return the cost of reward. Her reason was that her husband did not pass her consent, so she used their husband and wife common property.
But the court later determined that her husband's behavior was consumer behavior. Therefore, the woman's claim was rejected, and the woman also found the female anchor to ask her husband to reward money, but the female anchor said she would not return it. Later, after they were sued them to the court, the court thought that her husband was recharging on the Internet platform, and it was a virtual currency purchased to reward. This behavior belongs to the consumption behavior of the entertainment network, and has signed some agreements and contracts with the platform.
M: This also enjoys mental interests, so they have the relationship between network service contracts. It has legal benefits, not a gift. So every time the man's reward consumption, the service content of the platform and the man was fulfilled. Then the man's rewarding behavior could not be returned, and the man had the ability to civil behavior. He has a long and continuous reward, and he also has independence.
. So there is no more than the right of family agency rights, and his wife has no way to ask for this money. Therefore, the request of this woman will be rejected. Regarding the live broadcast, the National Internet Information Office, and the Market Supervision Administration, they have all issued a explanation. The live broadcast is required to be standardized in terms of tax management, and taxation is required, and marketing behavior must be standardized. In other words, it is necessary to standardize the live broadcast of goods or live broadcasts, but it is not denied the live broadcast, and it also shows that there is no upper limit on the anchor's reward.
Now that the Internet is developed and the live broadcast is now very hot, many people make money through live broadcasts. On July 22, 2022, a case occurred in Tianjin. It was a man who rewarded more than 100,000 to the female anchor, and his wife told the female anchor and live broadcast company, asking them to return the cost of reward. Her reason was that her husband did not pass her consent, so she used their husband and wife common property.
But the court later determined that her husband's behavior was consumer behavior. Therefore, the woman's claim was rejected, and the woman also found the female anchor to ask her husband to reward money, but the female anchor said she would not return it. Later, after they were sued them to the court, the court thought that her husband was recharging on the Internet platform, and it was a virtual currency purchased to reward. This behavior belongs to the consumption behavior of the entertainment network, and has signed some agreements and contracts with the platform.
The also enjoyed spiritual interests, so they have a network service contract. It has legal benefits, not a gift. So every time the man's reward consumption, the service content of the platform and the man was fulfilled. Then the man's rewarding behavior could not be returned, and the man had the ability to civil behavior. He has a long and continuous reward, and he also has independence.
So there is no more than the right to family agency, and his wife has no way to ask for this money. Therefore, the request of this woman will be rejected. Regarding the live broadcast, the National Internet Information Office, and the Market Supervision Administration, they have all issued a explanation. The live broadcast is required to be standardized in terms of tax management, and taxation is required, and marketing behavior must be standardized. In other words, it is necessary to standardize the live broadcast of goods or live broadcasts, but it is not denied the live broadcast, and it also shows that there is no upper limit on the anchor's reward.
There is no upper limit limit for reward anchors, but the relevant departments should take corresponding precautions for this matter. One amount that everyone is rewarded every day is more helpful for subsequent control and avoiding this kind of. The situation happened again.
There is no upper limit of the anchor to reward the anchor, and can be rewarded indefinitely, and according to your economic strength and conditions.
There is a new rule for webcasting, that is, the upper limit is set up by a single reward. For example, many people have no upper limit to reward anchors, and they can just brush up, but now they have changed a lot, because live broadcasts are very confusing, and many people will have many contradictions after rewarding.
Now that the Internet is developed and the live broadcast is now very hot, many people make money through live broadcasts. On July 22, 2022, a case occurred in Tianjin. It was a man who rewarded more than 100,000 to the female anchor, and his wife told the female anchor and live broadcast company, asking them to return the cost of reward. Her reason was that her husband did not pass her consent, so she used their husband and wife common property.
But the court later determined that her husband's behavior was consumer behavior. Therefore, the woman's claim was rejected, and the woman also found the female anchor to ask her husband to reward money, but the female anchor said she would not return it. Later, after they were sued them to the court, the court thought that her husband was recharging on the Internet platform, and it was a virtual currency purchased to reward. This behavior belongs to the consumption behavior of the entertainment network, and has signed some agreements and contracts with the platform.
M: This also enjoys mental interests, so they have the relationship between network service contracts. It has legal benefits, not a gift. So every time the man's reward consumption, the service content of the platform and the man was fulfilled. Then the man's rewarding behavior could not be returned, and the man had the ability to civil behavior. He has a long and continuous reward, and he also has independence.
. So there is no more than the right of family agency rights, and his wife has no way to ask for this money. Therefore, the request of this woman will be rejected. Regarding the live broadcast, the National Internet Information Office, and the Market Supervision Administration, they have all issued a explanation. The live broadcast is required to be standardized in terms of tax management, and taxation is required, and marketing behavior must be standardized. In other words, it is necessary to standardize the live broadcast of goods or live broadcasts, but it is not denied the live broadcast, and it also shows that there is no upper limit on the anchor's reward.