The rise of online live streaming has given rise to a series of new legal disputes. Among them, the act of one spouse using a substantial amount of joint property to reward online hosts without the consent of the other has sparked widespread discussion on whether the spouse can recover the funds. This issue spans the intersection of marriage and family law and contract law, making it quite complex and difficult to generalize.

  Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the legal nature of the act of rewarding. The mainstream view holds that when users recharge and purchase virtual props to reward hosts on online platforms, they form a contractual relationship with the platform and the hosts. Users receive mental pleasure, while the platform and the hosts provide performance services, which is a legal consumption behavior rather than a gratuitous gift. Since it is a consumption behavior, it is subject to the constraints of the contract.

Under this premise, whether the spouse can recover the funds usually requires consideration of the following core aspects.
  First, whether the act of rewarding belongs to the category of “family daily needs”. The Civil Code stipulates that civil legal acts implemented by one spouse for the needs of family daily life are effective for both parties. Obviously, small and occasional rewards can be classified as cultural and entertainment consumption, but continuous, substantial, and far exceeding the general family income level rewards are difficult to be identified as “family daily needs”. In this case, the part exceeding the daily household agency power requires equal consultation and consensus between the husband and wife.

  Second, the effectiveness of the unauthorized disposition of joint property. One party's substantial reward is essentially an unauthorized disposition of joint property. However, the issue lies in whether the hosts and platforms receiving the rewards areGoodwill third parties. Article 311 of the Civil Code stipulates the system of good faith acquisition, which is mainly aimed at property rights, but its underlying legal principles have reference significance. If the hosts are unaware of the “unauthorized disposition” by the users and there is no evidence to prove that there is an improper relationship or collusive conspiracy between them, then, as good faith counterparties, the hosts and platforms, having fulfilled their performance obligations, are legally inclined to protect their trust interests. In this case, it is extremely difficult for the spouse to claim the recovery of all the funds. The court is more likely to consider this as an internal property dispute between the husband and wife, and the injured party can claim a reduction or non-allocation of property based on Article 1092 of the Civil Code when getting a divorce.

  Third, breakthroughs in exceptional cases. If the spouse can provide sufficient evidence to prove that the giver has developed an improper relationship with the host offline, has violated public order and good customs, and that the reward is for the purpose of establishing or maintaining such an illegal relationship, then the legal foundation of the reward behavior will be shaken. The court may, on the grounds of violating public order and good customs, declare the network service contract invalid and support the spouse in recovering part or all of the funds. However, this requires a high standard of evidence, such as proving a direct causal connection between the reward and the offline relationship, and mereAmbiguous chat records are often insufficient to prove.

Therefore, for the spouse, upon discovering such situations, they should immediately secure evidence, including recharge records, reward records, and chat content that can prove the nature of the relationship between the host and the giver. However, on the whole, the law tends to guide the victim to obtain relief through marital property division or divorce damage compensation rather than directly breaking through the principle of contractual relativity to claim compensation from the good faith hosts.