China's top court has issued clearer guidance for judges handling cases involving minors' online game purchases and livestreaming tips, instructing them to carefully consider a child's age and cognitive ability when determining contract validity and strengthening protections for young internet users.

The requirement is part of a 39-article guideline released on Wednesday by the Supreme People's Court to establish a more comprehensive legal framework for civil cases involving minors.

In disputes related to online contracts, judges are required to assess a child's understanding of their actions and ability to grasp foreseeable consequences.

The goal is to determine whether a contract is appropriate for the minor's age and level of development and to establish its legal validity.

Courts are directed to support refund claims when contracts are deemed void and to assess liability for losses based on factors including the child's age, how the contract was formed and the involvement of parents or guardians.

Shan Yanwei, a lawyer from Henan province, said the guideline responds to public concerns and will strengthen protection for minors in cyberspace.

"The increase in internet use has led to more minors making high-value online transactions, resulting in numerous disputes over contract validity and refunds," she said.

While courts in major cities have cautiously handled such cases, Shan said the guideline seeks to standardize practices nationwide and ensure the principle of "best interests of the minor" is upheld.

In one instance, a Beijing court in 2025 ordered a livestreaming platform to refund 240,000 yuan ($35,000) of the 450,000 yuan spent by an adolescent boy on virtual tips, ruling that both the platform and the minor's guardians shared responsibility.

The 17-year-old student used his father's bank card to tip livestreaming hosts over the course of a year. The platform initially restricted his account after detecting unusual activity but later lifted the limit after the student impersonated his father over the phone.

Later, the father sought a full refund but the platform argued it had acted reasonably.

The court ruled that as a minor, the teenager lacked parental consent, making the transactions void. It also found the platform negligent for restoring access without proper verification and cited the teenager's deception and his parents' lack of oversight, assigning responsibility to multiple parties.

Shan said the guideline clarifies how to handle child-related disputes in the digital age and emphasizes its focus on protecting minors throughout the judicial process, from case filing to enforcement.

The guideline also calls on courts nationwide to improve the quality of social investigations and psychological support in child-related cases, making such services more standardized and regulated.

Yu Meng, a judge with the Supreme People's Court's First Civil Division, highlighted the importance of the "best interests of the minor" principle.

"It means courts should consider all circumstances and choose the approach that best protects a child's rights and well-being," she said.

"For example, in divorce cases involving parents with two children, courts should not automatically assign one child to each parent. If siblings have strong emotional bonds and rely on each other, judges should consider these factors, listen to the children's views and make decisions that support their best interests and healthy development," she added.