China’s Hangzhou Court claimed that NFTs carry characteristics of property rights like value, scarcity, disposability, and readability, and therefore should be protected by the law.
The Hangzhou Internet Court is a court of special jurisdiction that focuses on internet-related cases. The Court dealt with a case in late November in which it called for NFT regulations.
The Hangzhou Digital Technology Company, which runs an NFT marketplace and a platform user, was on each side of the hearing.
The user claimed it didn’t receive the NFT it purchased, even after fulfilling all the requirements. The user claimed the company refunded them instead of delivering the purchased NFT.
Read more: China’s NFT Market Regulations Are Taking Off
The user claimed that the company caused him financial harm by withholding from their end of the bargain and sued to ask to either deliver the NFT or compensate for his financial loss by paying 99,999 yuan ($14,368).
In response, the company argued that they didn’t facilitate the transfer because the information the user provided during the purchase didn’t match.
Hangzhou Internet Court sided with the user because the transaction involved NFT digital collections, not NFT rights certificates. The court stated:
“NFT digital collections have the object characteristics of property rights such as value, scarcity, disposability, and tradability. They also have the unique properties of network virtual property such as network virtuality and technology, and are network virtual property. The contract involved does not violate the laws and regulations of our country, nor does it violate our country’s realistic policy and regulatory orientation to prevent economic and financial risks, and should be protected by our laws.”
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand