Employee Fired for Porn at Work Sues, but Court Backs Firm

Mr.Peter, a 41-year-old employee engaged in membership management at a financial institution, was terminated in August 2024 for browsing pornographic websites during working hours. TPeter company cited “serious violation of management regulations” as tPeter reason for terminating his labor contract.

Claiming no such misconduct, Peter applied for labor arbitration, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal and annual bonuses. The arbitration committee rejected his claims, prompting him to file a lawsuit in court.

During the trial, Peter submitted a photo of the open-environment office to argue that the workspace made it impossible to browse inappropriate content at work, alleging that someone else might have used his computer.

The company countered, “Employees reported extremely slow internet speeds, so our network administrator reviewed backend data and found Peter had massively downloaded and viewed pornographic videos on his work computer.” The company also presented the following evidence:

  1. Notarized browsing and download records from Peter’s work computer, showing extensive access to pornographic websites and video downloads. A “WeChat group chat record” further proved that the timestamps and devices used for sending work files by Peter matched those for accessing pornographic content, ruling out his claim of “third-party operation.”
  2. A video of a conversation between company leaders and Peter, in which Peter admitted to browsing and downloading pornographic materials.Employee Fired for Porn at Work Sues, but Court Backs Firm

The court held that employers may terminate labor contracts if employees seriously violate regulations. Based on verified facts, Peter had signed the company’s Internet Management Regulations,  (for more information regarding internal management regulations, you may check our previously post: Employee Handbook-Important Fact…)which strictly prohibited accessing pornographic content during work hours. The overwhelming evidence—including browsing records on his work device and the admission in the conversation video—confirmed Peter’s violation of both company rules and the labor contract. Thus, the company’s dismissal was lawful, and no compensation was owed.

Regarding the annual performance bonus, the court stated that Peter’s termination for serious misconduct meant Peter failed to meet the requirement of full attendance in 2022 due to his own actions, so his claim lacked factual basis and was dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Peter appealed, but the appellate court upheld the original ruling in its final decision.

Free Perks? Jail Perks!

Recently, I came across an outrageous piece of news. A woman in Shanghai carried out a real – life version of the “free – riding survival guide.” She managed to stay in hotels, eat takeout, and get clothes all for free by exploiting loopholes. She lived it up for a month, but in the end, she was taken away by the police!

This woman’s tactics were “textbook – level.” When staying in hotels, she either claimed there were bugs in the bed or faked an allergic reaction. She even prepared dead crickets in advance as “tools for framing.” When ordering takeout, she would nitpick relentlessly, saying things like the food was burnt or there were foreign objects in it. To keep the peace, merchants had no choice but to issue refunds. When it came to buying clothes, she took full advantage of the seven – day no – questions – asked return policy. She didn’t even remove the price tags, and would return the clothes right after wearing them. But she forgot that what goes around comes around, and her cunning tricks directly set off the “alarm bells” of the law.

According to Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the following acts constitute the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” and may be punished with fixed – term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, or public surveillance: beating others at will; chasing, intercepting, abusing, or intimidating others with circumstances being flagrant; forcibly seizing, willfully damaging, or occupying public or private property with circumstances being serious; or creating disturbances in public places, causing serious disruptions to public order.

Regarding the woman we mentioned at the beginning, she made multiple malicious complaints against merchants, forcing them to “foot the bill” for her accommodation and meals. This seriously disrupted the operations of the merchants, which falls under the category of “forcibly seizing, willfully damaging, or occupying public or private property with circumstances being serious.”

So, it’s important to understand relevant legal regulations and clearly define the boundaries between “legal” and “illegal” behavior.

First of all, A woman in Shanghai carried out a real - life version of the "free - riding survival guide." when dealing with consumer disputes, if you truly encounter problems with product quality or are dissatisfied with the service, you should calmly communicate with the merchants and keep evidence such as chat records and shopping receipts. You can also call 12315 for help from the Consumer Association or file complaints through formal channels. However, do not make malicious reports or repeatedly harass the merchants.

Secondly, when surfing the Internet, you need to watch what you say. Avoid fabricating and spreading false information, or engaging in personal attacks and malicious abuse of others.

Finally, pay attention to your behavior in public places. Don’t deliberately create disturbances, damage public facilities, or arbitrarily stop vehicles and abuse passers – by just to vent your emotions.

In addition, many platforms and merchants do offer preferential policies to attract customers, but these rules are not meant to be used as “tools for freeloading.” Don’t think you can get away with your petty trick. In the era of the Internet, big data records everything! Once you cross the legal line, you may face fines and detention at the least, or even imprisonment at the worst.

 

After Property Sale, Can the New Landlord Wants Me to Move Out in China ?

I recently received a client inquiry with the following details:

I’ve been renting an apartment in Shanghai for the past year, but my landlord just informed me that he sold the property. The new owner says I have to move out in 30 days because they want to move in themselves. My lease still has 8 months left—can they legally do this? What are my rights? I’m really worried about finding a new place so quickly. Please help!

Has this ever happened to you? Below is my responseit might be useful for others in the same spot. 

Thank you for reaching out—I completely understand your concern, and I’m happy to clarify your rights under Chinese law. The short answer is no, the new owner cannot force you out before your lease ends. Below, I’ll explain the legal protections you have and the steps you should take next. 

Key Legal Principle: “Sale Does Not Break Lease” (买卖不破租赁)** 

Chinese law follows the continental legal system, which includes the principle “Kauf bricht nicht Miete”  (German for “sale does not break rent”). This means: 

Your existing lease remains fully valid even after the property is sold.

The new owner must honor the original lease terms until expiration.After Property Sale, Can the New Landlord Wants Me to Move Out in China?

You can find it in relevant Laws & Regulations:

  1. Article 725 of the Civil Code of the PRC:

“If the ownership of a leased property is transferred during the lease term, the lease contract remains in effect.”

This means

1) The new owner cannot evict you before your lease ends.

2) The new landlord has the right to collect rent but cannot terminate the lease early. 

2.Breach of Contract Penalties ( Stipulated in Articles 577-588 of the Civil Code)

If the landlord (old or new) tries to force you out, they are breaching the contract. You are entitled to: 

1) Full refund of your deposit and unused rent (if paid in advance) 

2Possible compensation (If you can provide evidence of additional damages

What Should You Do Now?

1. Politely Inform the New Landlord

1Send them Article 725 and explain that your lease is legally binding. 

2 Offer to pay rent directly to them moving forward. 

2. Secure Your Deposit

1Request written confirmation from the old landlord that your deposit will be transferred to the new owner. 

2If they refuse, demand a refund before the property sale is finalized. 

3. Prepare for Worst-Case Scenarios

   – If the landlord threatens illegal eviction (e.g., cutting utilities), contact: 

     -Local Housing Authority (住房保障和房屋管理局)

     -Police (110 for emergencies)

Note:This advice is based on Chinese law as of 2025. For complex disputes, consult a local attorney.

How to Deal with Workplace PUA Tactics? Know Your Rights When Employers Force Resignation in China

Many companies try to avoid paying severance by using psychological pressure, humiliation, or unreasonable demands to force employees to quit voluntarily. This is a form of “workplace PUA” (Pick-Up Artist tactics applied in employment), where employers manipulate employees into resigning instead of firing them.   

If you are facing such a situation, do not resign impulsively. Instead, understand your legal rights and take strategic steps to protect yourself.

1. Common PUA Tactics Used by Employers

Employers may use the following methods to pressure employees into quitting: 

* Sudden Demotion or Reduced Responsibilities – Assigning meaningless tasks to make work unbearable. 

* Unreasonable Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) – Setting impossible goals to justify termination. 

* Public Humiliation or Bullying – Constant criticism, exclusion, or verbal abuse. 

* Sudden Pay Cuts or Benefit Reductions – Pressuring employees to leave by cutting wages. 

* Forced Transfers to Remote Locations – Moving employees to inconvenient workplaces.   

If you experience any of these, your employer may be trying to constructively dismiss you without compensation.   

2.Legal Protections Against Forced Resignation

Under the Labor Laws of the PRC, employees have strong protections:   

1) Constructive Dismissal ( Accordingly to Article 38 of Labor Contract Law of PRC)

If an employer: 

– Fails to pay wages on time, 

– Forces unsafe working conditions, 

– Harasses or bullies employees, 

– Unilaterally changes job locations/salaries without agreement, 

The employee can legally resign immediately and demand severance (2N compensation/ double severance, meaning you are entitled to 2N months salary, “N” equals to how many years you have been working with the employer) . Of course, it takes skills to do that. Firstly, you need to collect strong evidence; Secondly, you have to prepare your resignation letter very carefully in an effort to claim for 2N compensation.  How to Deal with Workplace PUA Tactics?
 Know Your Rights When Employers Force Resignation in China

2) Unlawful Termination (According to Article 48 of Labor Contract Law)

If fired without cause, you are entitled to: 

– 2N compensation. 

– Reinstatement if you prefer to keep your job, but we don’t recommend it, as usually it’s not a good experience to stay.

3) Evidence Collection -Which Is Crucial for Legal Claims

To prove workplace PUA, gather: 

–  Emails/chat logs  (showing unreasonable demands or harassment). 

–  Pay slips and contracts  (proving pay cuts or demotions). 

–  Witness statements  (colleagues who observed mistreatment). 

–  HR meeting recordings. 

 3.What Should You Do If Facing PUA?

Step 1: Do NOT Resign Immediately

– Resigning voluntarily means no compensation . 

– Instead,  force the company to fire you if they want you gone. 

Step 2: Document Everything

– Keep records of  unfair treatment, pay cuts, or harassment . 

– If given an unfair PIP,  request clear, measurable objectives  in writing. 

Step 3: Negotiate or File a Complaint

– Talk to HR  (in writing) demanding fair treatment. 

– If ignored,  file a complaint with the local Labor Bureau . 

– If fired unlawfully,  demand 2N compensation via labor arbitration .

4. Conclusion: Stand Your Ground

Many companies use psychological tactics to avoid paying severance.  Do not fall for it.  Instead: 

 Refuse to quit under pressure.

 Collect evidence of mistreatment.

 Use labor laws to claim rightful compensation.

If your employer is pushing you out unfairly,  consult a labor lawyer to explore legal action. Remember:  The law is on your side—use it!  

Additional Resources

Labor Dispute Hotline: 12333 (Ask one of your Chinese friends to call it for you, as few of the staff answer the phone speak English)

Would you like help drafting a formal complaint letter to local labor bureau? Let us know!

Are Entertainment Venues Allowed to Ban Outside Food and Drinks in China?

Many of us have experienced this: when going to a cinema, concert, or theme park, we bring along some water and snacks bought outside. But at the entrance, staff stop us, insisting we can only buy their overpriced food and drinks. A bottle of cola that costs 5 yuan in a supermarket might be sold for 25 yuan inside these venues. So, is this “no outside food or drinks” policy actually legal?  

The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: %e7%94%9f%e6%88%90%e7%89%b9%e5%ae%9a%e9%a3%8e%e6%a0%bc%e5%9b%be%e7%89%87-1-3

The answer is no. China’s Consumer Protection Law safeguards several fundamental rights of consumers, which directly challenge such unreasonable regulations.Are Entertainment Venues Allowed to Ban Outside Food and Drinks in China?

 

Are Entertainment Venues Allowed to Ban Outside Food and Drinks in China?Article 4 of the law entitles consumers to fair trade. When venues force us to buy their overpriced items, they are imposing unfair conditions. Article 9 protects consumers’ right to free choice. Banning outside food restricts our freedom to decide what we consume.

Article 20 requires businesses to have transparent pricing. If a venue doesn’t clearly inform us about the “no outside food” rule before ticket purchase, this rule has no legal effect.

These legal provisions are not just theoretical. In a 2021 case in Shanghai, a cinema was fined 8,000 yuan for confiscating snacks brought in by customers. This ruling clearly shows that such “no outside food” policies are both unfair and illegal.

If the law is clear, why do many venues still enforce this policy? The main reason is profit, of course. Venues can make a huge profit by selling expensive food and drinks. Some venues also claim it’s to “maintain hygiene,” but there’s no law supporting the ban on sealed, packaged outside food. Most consumers are responsible enough to keep the environment clean, so this excuse doesn’t hold up.Are Entertainment Venues Allowed to Ban Outside Food and Drinks in China?

If you encounter a venue banning outside food and drinks, here are some ways to protect your rights.

  1. When stopped at the entrance, record the conversation with staff and remind them that consumers have the legal right to bring in outside food. Ask the venue to show you the written policy. If it wasn’t publicly announced before you bought the ticket, the venue has no right to stop you.
  2. Call 12315—the consumer hotline, to file a complaint. Forced sales can result in a fine of up to 10,000 yuan. If you’re refused entry because of outside food, you can demand a full refund according to Article 53 of the Consumer Protection Law.

However, there are some exceptions. For safety reasons, places like swimming pools may ban glass bottles, and family – friendly venues may restrict alcoholic beverages. At religious or cultural sites, such as temples, certain foods may be restricted out of respect for traditions and beliefs, like banning meat.

The next time you face a “no outside food” rule, don’t give in easily. Know your legal rights and protect your interests. If you’ve had similar experiences, share them in the comments below, and let’s raise awareness about consumer rights together.

Related provision:

Article 9 of  Law of the PRC on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Consumers

  Consumers shall be entitled to autonomous selection of goods or services.

Consumers shall be entitled to autonomous selection of business operators which provide goods or services, types of goods or service methods, and autonomous decision of purchasing or not purchasing any particular type of goods and accepting or not accepting any particular type of services.

Consumers shall, in the exercise of autonomous selection of goods or services, have the right to make comparison, identification and selection.

 

Can the Kid’s Surname to Be Changed after Divorce in China?

When a couple get divorced, usually the kid will live with the dad or mum.  Then question comes:

1. Can the parent change the kid’s name without permission of the other party?

Article 16 of Marriage Law of the PRC stipulates that: children may take the surname of their father or mother. Generally speaking, a baby’s name is determined by the parents, so the change of the child’s name should also be agreed upon by both parents, neither party has the right to change the child’s name without permitted by the other party.

According to the Reply from the Supreme People’s Court’s on the Issue of Changing a Child’s Surname, local public security bureau may reject the request by one of the parents to change the kid’s name without the other party’s permission. Where one party changes the name of a child by concealing the fact of the divorce from the public security bureau and if the other party requests that the original name to be restored, the public security bureau shall restore it.

In conclusion, after divorce, the parent who live with the child has no right to change the surname alone. Even if it is changed, the other party has the right to request the original name to be restored.Can the Kid’s Surname to Be Changed after Divorce?

2.If the parent changed the child’s name without permission of the other party, can the other party refuse to pay alimony?

Article 37 of the Marriage Law of the PRC stipulates that: after divorce, if it’s decided that the child live with one parent, all necessary living and education expenses shall be borne by both parents, and the amount of expenses to be borne and the length of the period shall be agreed upon by the two parties, that’s both parents’ duty and responsibility.

No parent is allowed to refuse to pay these expenses based on the fact that the other party has changed the child’s name without his/her permission. He/she can solve the “name” issue legally, but it is irrelevant to his/her duty as parent to support the child financially.

3. How to change Child’s surnames after divorce?

According to related laws, children can take their father’s/mother’s surname. Any adults have the right to change their own names, however, the change of any juvenile’s names must be decided by both parents.

If either parent wants to change the child’s surname, he/she needs to consult with the child’s biological father/mother to get a written consent. If the child is older than 10 years old, it is also necessary to seek the child’s opinion.

The parent needs to bring both his/her and the child’s household registration book, his/her ID card, and other materials required to the local public security bureau where the household registration is located. Signature of both parties on the application will be required before change of the name is approved.

Self-Defense Wins! Legal Verdict Finally

On the evening of November 22, 2020, Ms. Zhang, the owner of a restaurant in Zibo, Shandong Province, fought back after being assaulted by an intoxicated customer. However, her actions were deemed “mutual affray”, resulting in a five-day administrative detention and a 200-yuan fine. The customer, citing the public security authority’s decision, demanded 40,000 yuan from Ms. Zhang as compensation for his alleged “injuries”… This incident prompted Ms. Zhang to seek clarity on whether her self-defense was legally justified and how the nature of the conflict should be properly determined.

After a protracted legal process involving first-instance and second-instance court trials, protests by procuratorial organs  and a retrial by the court, the case was finally rejudged as legitimate self-defense. This case not only concerns individual rights but also vividly illustrates the core legal principle that “law should not yield to lawlessness.”

Historically, in public security cases, the simplistic determination that “any act of fighting back constitutes mutual affray” hindered the practical application of the principle that “the law does not require the impossible”. In Ms. Zhang’s case, the initial law enforcement and judicial processes overlooked her urgent situation during the unlawful assault, conflating her defensive actions with those of the assailant. Such “equivocal law enforcement” blurred the line between justice and injustice, eroding public trust in the legal system’s impartiality.

Self-Defense Wins! Legal Verdict Finally

Today, significant positive changes are occurring in judicial practice. From the “Kunshan Anti-killing Case” to that of the Zibo restaurant owner , judicial authorities are increasingly breaking away from traditional mindsets, recognizing legitimate self-defense from a more rational and humane perspective. In Ms. Zhang’s case, the procuratorial organ’s in-depth investigation raised doubts about the cause of the assailant’s injuries. The court, during the retrial, considered the evidence and ruled that Ms. Zhang’s counterattack—aimed at stopping the unlawful infringement—did not constitute a violation of public security regulations.

Furthermore, the Draft Amendment to the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments of the People’s Republic of China, scheduled for further deliberation in June this year, includes new provisions on legitimate self-defense. This development underscores that the principle of “law not yielding to lawlessness” should serve as a fundamental standard for law enforcement and judicial activities, applicable to both criminal and public security cases. It calls on law enforcement and judicial personnel to abandon the simplistic approach of “punishing both parties equally” and accurately determine what constitutes legitimate self-defense.

As Professor Guo Zhilong from China University of Political Science and Law pointed out, the rejudgment of this case has two significant positive implications:

Firstly, it guides law enforcement agencies to routinely consider the possibility of legitimate self-defense by the party fighting back, thereby expanding the application of the self-defense system in law enforcement practice.

Secondly, it actively encourages citizens to safeguard their own and others’ legitimate rights and interests, fostering a social ethos where individuals are brave in upholding justice and protecting their lawful rights.

Should the School Be Liable for Kids Getting Injured on Campus?

Recently, a campus accident case in Wuxi, Jiangsu has attracted widespread attention. A sixth-grade student accidentally fell down the stairs after school and was injured. The parents sued the school, demanding 80,000 yuan in compensation. The court ultimately ruled that the school was not liable for damages—a result that surprised many. Does this mean schools are not responsible when students get hurt on campus?

In this case, 12-year-old Zhao Xiaomou fell while descending the stairs after school, sustaining dental injuries. The parents argued that the school failed in its supervisory duties and should compensate them, while the school provided substantial evidence: clear safety warnings such as “Watch Your Step” were posted in the stairwell, regular safety education was conducted, and teachers immediately contacted the parents and accompanied the child to the hospital after the incident. The court’s on-site inspection confirmed that the stair facilities were in good condition, with no evidence of pushing by others or structural defects.

Article 1200 of China’s Civil Code clearly stipulates that for personal injuries sustained by individuals with limited capacity for civil conduct during school hours, the school is only liable if it “**fails** in its educational or managerial duties.”

Should the School Be Liable for Kids Getting Injured on Campus?In this case, the judge examined three key aspects:

first, whether the school had taken preventive measures, including safety education and facility maintenance;

second, whether the response during the incident was timely and appropriate;

and third, whether proper medical care was provided afterward.

The court concluded that the school had fulfilled its responsibilities in all these areas and therefore should not be held liable.

This ruling sets an important precedent. In reality, many schools, fearing parental disputes, adopt overly cautious approaches—even canceling normal physical activities. This case sends a clear message: the judiciary will not “muddy the waters.” As long as a school fulfills its duties, it will receive legal protection. This not only safeguards normal teaching order but also guides parents toward rational dispute resolution—not every accident requires someone to “take the blame”; the key lies in determining whether fault exists.