In the era where ¡°traffic reigns supreme¡±, the number of followers and comments has become a crucial standard for assessing the commercial value of social media accounts. Consequently, some merchants began to devise schemes to provide consumers with ¡°click farming¡± services to increase the number of followers and comments on Sina Weibo, allowing their accounts to gain popularity and attention quickly.

Do such actions by merchants infringe upon the lawful rights of social platform operators? What price will merchants pay?

[Case Review] 

In 2021, the plaintiff, the operator of the Sina Weibo platform, discovered that Company B was offering ¡°click farming¡± services to manipulate Sina Weibo account data such as cheating the number of comments and followers, all clearly priced on various platforms it operated. After purchasing the service, the affected accounts would immediately see tens of thousands of views and thousands of new followers added.

The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in the People¡¯s Court, demanding that Company B, its legal representative Xu, and Huang, who participated in click farming, immediately cease their unfair competitive activities, compensate for reasonable losses, and mitigate the impact.

Defendants Company B and Xu argued that their business scope and model differed from those of Sina Weibo, thereby not engaging in direct competition, and that click farming was a legitimate marketing strategy, not constituting unfair competition. They claimed they were merely intermediaries in the ¡°click farming¡± services, the added follower data was real, and they did not use technical means to disrupt the platform¡¯s system or products. They maintained that the action of ¡°generating followers¡± did not hinder the platform¡¯s normal operations; moreover, the disputed click farming had ceased and had not caused substantial losses to the plaintiff.

Defendant Huang did not respond to the allegations.

[Case Study] 

Shanghai Putuo District People¡¯s Court (hereinafter referred to as ¡°Putuo District People¡¯s Court¡±) concluded that Sina Weibo possesses legitimate rights and interests in the data on the social media platform involved in the case. The traffic, legitimate commercial benefits, and competitive advantages it accrues should be legally protected.

The three defendants organized false click farming to assist users in conducting misleading or deceptive commercial promotion, violating the Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China on Anti-Unfair Competition (hereinafter referred to as the ¡°Law on Anti-Unfair Competition¡±). This act compromised the legal rights and interests of various stakeholders including the operators of the social platform, users, and advertisers, and disrupted the normal market competition order.

The business of click farming heavily relies on and directly affects the social media platform involved. Even in the absence of a direct competitive relationship, it undermines the plaintiff¡¯s core competitive advantages. The nature of the defendants¡¯ involvement, acting as intermediaries for the ¡°click farming¡± services, does not alter the fact that they charged for these services and objectively provided them.

Taking into account the renown of Sina Weibo, the pattern, nature, duration, and impact of the alleged infringement, and the degree of the defendants¡¯ subjective fault, the People¡¯s Court ordered the three defendants to immediately cease their unfair competition against the plaintiff. Defendants B Company and Xu are jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of RMB 2,000,000, and Defendant Huang is responsible for a joint compensation of RMB 200,000. Additionally, the defendants are required to publish a statement in the ¡°Legal Daily¡± to mitigate the impact of their actions. 

I. Click farming is essentially false advertising, not legitimate marketing

According to the provisions of the Law on Anti-Unfair Competition, operators are prohibited from organizing false transactions or aiding other operators in disseminating false or misleading commercial promotions. In this case, although B Company and Xu claimed that the increased followers and likes they facilitated were genuine, and the relevant followers and liker accounts did exist. However, authenticity in data is not merely about the ¡°quantity¡± being real. Rather, it should pertain more significantly to the ¡°quality¡± of authenticity, meaning that changes in relevant data metrics should stem from the genuine intent of real platform users, not through fraudulent activities such as click farming.

The infringing behavior in this case involved organizing false transactions to fabricate user metrics such as follower counts, Weibo reading volumes, likes, and comments. These activities allowed certain users to generate a substantial amount of invalid traffic, creating a facade of popularity for social media accounts, thereby leading to deceptive commercial advertisements. Such practices harm the legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the platform operators, users, and advertisers, and constitute unfair competition.

II. The Business of Click Farming Disrupts Genuine Data and The Ecosystem of The Platform, Undermining Platform Operators¡¯ Competitive Edge

The Law on Anti-Unfair Competition not only supports fair competition among direct competitors but also maintains the overall market competition order. Particularly in the internet economy, where industry boundaries are increasingly blurred, even if operators do not directly compete, they can still be found at fault for unfair competition if they damage other operators¡¯ competitive advantages, harm their legitimate rights, and disrupt the normal market order, thereby incurring corresponding liabilities for infringement.

In this case, although B Company¡¯s ¡°click farming¡¯ services are not directly competitive with Sina Weibo¡¯s business, their business areas and target customers were essentially the same. B Company¡¯s business heavily relies on and directly affects Sina Weibo. The false traffic generated by click farming services corrupts the reliable data on Sina Weibo, which is precisely the core competitive advantage that the plaintiff relies on.

[Expert Commentary] 

Yuan Zhenfu, Dean of Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property

The flourishing internet economy, along with the significant commercial value and market interests behind traffic and data, have exacerbated online click farming, leading to the emergence of a shadow industry that has severely impacted the public integrity and objectivity of major online platforms. It has compromised the platforms¡¯ commitment to creating a genuine and trustworthy interactive ecosystem, leading to misinformation among users and damaging the entire internet industry¡¯s ecosystem and market competition.

The case handled by the People¡¯s Court, which involved regulating online ¡°click farming¡± services, determined that such practices essentially constitute data falsification and unfair competition, violating principles of honesty and business ethics. The ruling is critically important for protecting user rights, ensuring data security, maintaining market order, and promoting the sound development of the internet sector. It highlights the technological ethics required by online platforms in a digital environment, aids in establishing a comprehensive governance system for the platform economy and aligns with the socialist core values of ¡°equality and justice¡±, contributing to the creation of a clean and upright online environment and fostering a morally uplifting cyberspace. This serves as a reminder to the public and businesses that in the era of the internet economy, it is necessary to adhere to principles of honesty and business ethics, comply with the governance rules set by social platforms, and reject actions that would tarnish the integrity of cyberspace.

[Relevant Laws] 

I. Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China on Anti-Unfair Competition

Article 8 ¡­

Business operators shall not assist other business operators in making false or misleading commercial promotions by organizing fictitious transactions or other similar means.

Article 17 A business operator who violates this Law and thus causes damage to others shall bear civil liability for such damage in accordance with the law.

A business operator whose lawful rights and interests are infringed by an unfair competition act may file a lawsuit with a people¡¯s court.

The compensation for damage caused by any unfair competition act shall be determined based on the actual losses suffered by the operator as a result of the infringement. If it is truly difficult to calculate these actual losses, the compensation amount shall be determined in accordance with the benefits obtained by the infringer from the infringement. Where a business operator maliciously infringes on trade secrets and the circumstances are severe, the amount of compensation may be determined at one time to five times the amount determined by the method described above. The compensation amount shall also include the reasonable expenses incurred by the damaged business operator to stop the infringement.

If a business operator violates the provisions stipulated in Article 6 or Article 9 of the AUCL and it is truly difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the rights holder or the benefits obtained by the infringer from the infringement, the People¡¯s Court shall award compensation of up to RMB 5 million, depending on the circumstances of the infringement.

II. Interpretation by the Supreme People¡¯s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China on Anti-Unfair Competition

Article 23 Where it is difficult to ascertain the actual loss suffered by a rights holder due to an infringement involving unfair competition acts under Article 2, Article 8, Article 11, or Article 12 of the Law on Anti-Unfair Competition, or to determine the proceeds derived by the infringer from the infringement, the People¡¯s Court shall support a claim for determining the amount of compensation in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 17 of the Law on Anti-Unfair Competition.

III. Company Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 63 If the shareholder of a one-person limited liability company is unable to prove that the property of the company is independent of the shareholder's own property, the shareholder shall bear joint and several liabilities for the debts of the company.

(Case prepared by: Jing Zixuan and Shi Di from Putuo District People¡¯s Court)