Two 17-year-old boys, seeking excitement, stood on a dining table in a private room at Haidilao and urinated into the hotpot, filming the act and posting the video online. Haidilao filed a lawsuit against the boys and their parents in the People's Court, demanding a public apology and compensation for economic damages. Can "minor status" be used as a shield against illegal acts? How did the people¡¯s court rule?

[Case Review]

In the early morning of February 24, 2025, minors Tang (17 years old) and Wu (17 years old) stood on a dining table during their meal in a private room at Haidilao and urinated into the hotpot, taking turns to film each other. On February 27, Wu posted the video to his WeChat Moments. The video was later shared on platforms such as Douyin and Xiaohongshu, accompanied by captions such as "Haidilao" and "urinating", igniting widespread online debate.

Haidilao immediately reported the incident to the police. After identifying the store involved through investigation, the company immediately replaced all tableware and carried out thorough cleaning and disinfection. For the 4,109 dine-in orders affected during the relevant period at the store, Haidilao offered full refunds and tenfold compensation. On March 14, Haidilao filed a lawsuit in the People's Court, requesting that Tang, Wu, and their respective parents, a total of six individuals, make a public apology and pay compensation for various economic losses exceeding CNY 23 million.

Upon trial, the People's Court found that the act of urination by Tang and Wu polluted the tableware and dining environment and had a strongly insulting nature. The dissemination of the video caused reputational damage to Haidilao, constituting joint property infringement and defamation. Although Tang and Wu were persons with limited civil capacity, both had reached the age of 17 and were able to recognize the illegality of their actions and understand the legal consequences. They were aware of the content and legal meaning of a public apology. Holding them responsible for making a public apology did not exceed their capacity to bear such responsibility and would serve to prompt deep reflection. Therefore, they should bear responsibility for making a public apology. The guardians failed to fulfill their duties of education and supervision and should be legally responsiblefor issuing a public apology and providing economic compensation. To mitigate the negative impact of the infringement and prevent further operational risks, the costs incurred for replacing the tableware and for cleaning and disinfection at the affected store were reasonable.

Refunding dine-in consumers at the store during the relevant period constituted both reasonable compensation for consumers and a remedy for Haidilao's damaged commercial reputation and had a causal relationship with the infringing behavior. The decrease in operating income during the period of sustained negative impact was a reasonable loss resulting from the depreciation of commercial reputation. The tenfold compensation was a business decision made independently by Haidilao and lacked a causal relationship with the infringement. The reasonable portion of the legal expenses for protecting rights shall be borne by the infringers.

Accordingly, the People's Court ruled that Tang and his parents, and Wu and his parents, must issue a public apology to Haidilao in designated newspapers; Tang's parents and Wu's parents shall compensate Haidilao CNY 130,000 for tableware losses and cleaning and disinfection fees, CNY 2 million for operating losses and reputational damage, and CNY 70,000 for rights protection expenses.

[Judge's Remarks]

I. Age is not a shield for unlawful conduct

The law provides special protection to minors for the purpose of supporting their healthy development and guiding them onto the right path, but it does not tolerate unlawful behavior. Under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, if a minor causes harm to others, the guardian shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law. If the minor has assets, compensation shall first be paid from the minor's personal property, with any remaining balance to be covered by the guardian. In particular, for older minors whose mental capacity is nearing maturity, they have developed a certain ability to distinguish right from wrong and to control their behavior and are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply excuse their legal liability on the grounds of being "a minor". Strengthening moral education and rule of law education, and guiding minors to develop a sense of responsibility, are necessary requirements to help them grow into qualified socialist citizens who are accountable and abide by rules.

In this case, the two minors were already 17 years old, their mental capacities approaching those of adults, and they could recognize the consequences of their actions. The tortious acts they committed had already exceeded the bounds of "youthful ignorance" and reflected a disregard for moral norms and public order. The court's decision to hold the two minors liable for making a public apology demonstrates the judiciary's firm stance in correcting unlawful behavior committed by minors.

II. Education and discipline must not be absent

The law imposes guardianship responsibilities not only to ensure the basic livelihood of minors, but also to require guardians to educate them to distinguish right from wrong, and to discipline and guide them to respect boundaries. If a guardian merely satisfies the minor's material needs while neglecting moral and legal education, resulting in the child committing a tortious act, the guardian must bear legal responsibility in accordance with the law. This is a mandatory legal requirement regarding guardianship duties. In this case, the guardians failed to properly supervise the minors in their daily lives, lacking the necessary education and guidance, which ultimately led to the minors committing a tortious act. The court's decision ordering the guardians to make a public apology and compensate for economic losses in accordance with the law not only affirms the guardians' legal liability, but also serves as a reminder to all parents: Genuine care for children cannot be separated from necessary discipline and proper guidance.

III. Enterprises' lawful rights and interests are protected by law

Enterprises are entitled to property rights and the right to reputation under the law. Business reputation is like an enterprise's "economic calling card", built on public trust. Protecting an enterprise's reputation not only concerns its own interests, but also relates to a fair and honest market order. It is an important manifestation of the rule of law in ensuring the sound operation of the market economy. In this case, the act of urination polluted the tableware and dining environment, leading consumers to question the safety of the store involved and to resist consumption. The spread of the video triggered widespread negative public opinion, resulting in a decline in the public's perception of the enterprise. Based on the determination that the tortious acts caused damage to the enterprise's property and reputation, the case adhered to the principle of tort liability compensation. It lawfully recognized the reasonable losses suffered by the enterprise due to the infringement, thereby protecting the lawful rights and interests of the enterprise and providing judicial protection for a stable and orderly business environment.

[Representative's Comment]

Sheng Hong, Deputy of the National People's Congress, Secretary of the General Party Branch of the Gubei Ronghua No. 4 Residential Community, Hongqiao Subdistrict, Changning District, Shanghai

The behavioral norms of minors and the fulfillment of guardians' responsibilities form an important foundation for fostering a new culture of civility and maintaining social harmony. The healthy development of every minor relies on proper guidance from their family, dedicated education from schools, and joint supervision from society. Only through the concerted efforts of all parties can we solidify minors' awareness of discipline and the law, and create a clean, harmonious social environment.

The law neither condones unlawful acts committed by minors nor allows the absence of guardianship responsibilities. The judgment in this case fully demonstrates the multiple values of judicial decisions in terms of education, guidance, and protection. On one hand, based on the lawful determination of the nature of the tortious acts, the judgment reasonably defines the scope of compensation, makes up for the legitimate losses of the enterprise, and reflects judicial wisdom. On the other hand, holding minors responsible for making a public apology aligns with their cognitive abilities and capacity to bear responsibility, while prompting them to correct their behavior through the experience of confronting their wrongdoing. At the same time, by emphasizing that guardians must bear statutory responsibility, the judgment helps promote consensus among families, schools, and society, to jointly strengthen rule of law education and the cultivation of public morality among young people, guide minors to develop a sense of rules and responsibility and integrate the core socialist values into the process of their growth.

[Legal Provision Reference]

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 1024 Civil subjects shall enjoy the right to reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon other's right to reputation by insult, defamation, or similar acts.

Reputation is a social evaluation of the moral character, prestige, talent, and credit of a person of the civil law.

Article 1168 Where two or more persons jointly commit a tortious act, causing harm to another person, they shall bear joint and several liability.

Article 1188 Where a person with no or limited capacity for performing civil juristic acts causes damage to another person, the guardian of the said person shall assume tort liability. The guardian's tort liability may be reduced if they have fulfilled their guardianship duties.

Where a person, who has assets but has no or limited capacity for performing civil juristic acts, causes damage to another person, compensation shall be paid out of his own assets, and any deficiency shall be satisfied by their guardian.