A Chinese court has ruled that online gaming accounts can form part of a person’s inheritable property, potentially challenging the way game companies treat account ownership after a player dies.
The case involved a 36-year-old man from Beijing, identified in reports by the surname Gu or Hu. He had been unemployed and playing online games since his early twenties, building up 87 verified accounts over roughly a decade. His mother later learned that the accounts had significant value.
After her son died following a serious illness, Mrs Chen sought to have the accounts transferred to her. She was widowed, living on a modest income and struggling financially. The gaming company refused, arguing that it owned the relevant user data rather than the family.
The company’s identity has not been disclosed. The case was reported by China’s People’s Court Daily, a publication described by Sixth Tone as affiliated with the country’s Supreme People’s Court. A further account of the proceedings was published by Beijing Daily Client.
Why the court recognised the accounts as property
Gu’s father had already died, while his daughter signed a statement giving up her inheritance rights relating to the gaming accounts. That left his mother as the remaining potential heir. The company nevertheless relied on its user agreement, which stated that the accounts and virtual items belonged to the company and that players held only limited rights to use the associated data.
The Shijingshan District Court took a different view. Earlier Chinese legal decisions had recognised online virtual property as inheritable under the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.
The court reasoned that developing an account requires a player’s time, effort and money. Because the accounts and their virtual items have both practical use and transfer value, they represent property interests and can therefore be inherited.
The ruling ordered the company to change the real-name authentication on the accounts from Mr Gu to Mrs Chen within 15 days. The existing user-agreement conditions would continue to apply after the transfer.
For the wider arcade and gaming industry, the decision is notable because it places statutory property rights ahead of a company’s attempt to define digital accounts solely through contract terms. It appears to establish an important precedent in China, although its effect outside the country remains limited.
What the decision could mean for Steam libraries
The ruling does not change the position of Steam accounts in Australia, the United States or other jurisdictions. Steam does not officially permit account transfers after a user’s death. Reports from Steam users indicate that notifying Valve about a deceased account holder can result in the account being locked rather than transferred.
That creates an awkward distinction between physical ownership and digital access. A Steam user generally buys a licence or subscription right to access games in their own account, rather than purchasing the account itself. Yet a library can represent substantial spending, while save files and other digital records may carry personal value that cannot be measured in dollars.
The same question may eventually reach courts in other countries: can a digital game library really be treated as non-transferable if local law recognises it as property? Rumblings from the EU in 2024 pointed to a possible legal change that could affect the inheritance of Steam libraries, but no further development has followed in the information available here.
For players who prefer games with clearer physical or household ownership, a dedicated arcade machine offers a very different model from a cloud-linked account. Those planning a home setup can also compare options in RETROCADE’s arcade machine buying guide.
Leave a Reply