news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

After the first trial of the "iQiyi Screen Casting Restriction Case" was concluded, the court's verdict aroused heated discussions among netizens.

On the last day of the appeal period, the plaintiff appealed to the court, hoping that the lawsuit would allow single-time members who continue to subscribe to the same treatment as the package members. On July 17, Modern Express reporters learned that the defendant iQiyi also appealed. iQiyi said that it has no obligation to provide gold members with a projection service with a resolution better than 480P permanently and free of charge, and believed that the original judgment made mistakes in the fact finding and application of the law.

Seven-year "old fan" sues iQiyi, appeals for "equal treatment"

In February 2023, Modern Express exclusively reported that a seven-year "old fan" sued iQiyi because of restrictions on screen projection. After more than a year of trial, the "iQiyi restricted screen projection case" finally came to a close in the first instance. The court ruled that the plaintiff enjoyed the rights to high-definition screen projection of 720P and 1080P before July 15, 2025, and the iQiyi platform compensated the plaintiff for 41 days of gold membership VIP time. The court's verdict sparked discussions among netizens.

On July 13, the plaintiff Zhu Yuan formally filed an appeal. Zhu Yuan said that the purpose of this appeal was to fight for the same treatment for single-time members and serial members who have not subscribed. At the same time, Zhu Yuan said that he agreed with the first-instance judgment that the old members enjoyed the rights of high-definition projection within the original period, and the result of compensating for the 41-day membership period.

The picture shows a screenshot of the first-instance judgment

Zhu Yuan believes that the "iQiyi screen projection restriction case" is caused by the unclear and opaque rights and interests boundary between users and the platform under the membership classification, and the unilateral change of the platform. The deeper reason is that the underlying logic of the current membership classification fee is not unified. "As for the screen projection dispute, the platform originally divided the rights and interests according to the terminal used for differential charging. Previously, it did not use the definition as the principle of division for differential charging. The characteristics of the screen projection technology itself blurred the difference between large and small screens, resulting in blurred boundaries between terminals." Zhu Yuan believes that it is precisely because of this that the logic of charging by definition has been added to the original charging logic, and charging by terminal and by definition in parallel will cause confusion.

iQIYI appeals: Behavior does not constitute breach of contract, court’s fact finding is wrong

On July 17, Modern Express reporter learned that the defendant iQiyi has also appealed the first-instance judgment. iQiyi said in the appeal that the VIP membership service agreement and the various historical versions of the VIP membership service agreement did not stipulate that iQiyi was obliged to permanently and free of charge provide screen projection services with a resolution better than 480P to gold members. The fact that iQiyi once provided free services to users cannot be used to conclude that iQiyi is obliged to provide them permanently and free of charge.

iQiyi believes that even if we take a step back, regarding the responsibility, the original judgment that iQiyi compensate the respondent for 41 days of iQiyi APP Gold VIP membership did not take into account that the screen casting service is not equal to, and is actually far less than, the scope of gold membership rights. The original judgment determined that compensating for the same number of days of gold membership time as a way of limiting the clarity of screen casting has no factual and legal basis, and is contrary to the principle of compensating damages in civil cases, which is extremely unfair to iQiyi and seriously damages iQiyi's legitimate rights and interests.

In the appeal, iQIYI argued that even if it was determined that the alleged behavior of limiting the clarity of screen projection during the 41-day period constituted a breach of contract, the core rights of the appellant's gold membership were not affected in any way during the 41 days affected, except for the screen projection function. The original judgment to compensate for the same number of days of gold membership had no factual and legal basis and was clearly contrary to the principle of leveling out civil remedies.

To summarize, iQIYI stated that providing screen projection services with a resolution better than 480P to gold members is not part of the VIP Member Service Agreement. Regardless of whether it is based on the iQIYI Service Agreement or the VIP Member Service Agreement, iQIYI has no obligation to provide screen projection services with a resolution better than 480P to gold members permanently and free of charge. The alleged behavior does not constitute a breach of contract. The original judgment made errors in its determination of facts and application of law.

What will happen next in the "iQiyi screen projection restriction case"? Modern Express reporters will continue to pay attention.

Modern Express/Modern+ reporter Ji Yu