Wonderful case | Does the network live streaming host constitute a labor relationship with the company where it is located? - Taking the judicial judgment in Chengdu as the analysis object

Author | Deng Shuwenlawyer

_Introduction

On March 26, 2025, the “China Online Audiovisual Development Research Report (2025),” released at the 12th China Network Audiovisual Conference, revealed that the number of professional online streamers in China has reached 38.8 million, a year-on-year increase of 150%. In recent years, online streamers, as a new form of employmentRelying on digital platforms, have exhibited characteristics such as flexible working arrangements and personalized content.

Online streamers rely on platforms such as media companies and technology firms for their development, and whether a labor relationship exists between them and their employing company has long been a focal point of debate in practice. It is generally held that where a livestreaming anchor and the company it is affiliated with do not exhibit the characteristics of subordination, no employment relationship exists [see Note 1].

However, in any given case, whether a labor relationship exists between the parties cannot be determined across the board. This article, based on judicial practice and drawing on publicly available court judgments from the Chengdu area in recent years, systematically examines the key practical considerations employed by courts in determining whether a labor relationship exists between a live-streaming host and the company they are affiliated with. It aims to provide guidance for live-streaming hosts, media companies, technology firms, and other stakeholders in selecting appropriate avenues for safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests.

Legal Basis

Article 1 of the “Notice of the former Ministry of Labor and Social Security Concerning Matters Related to the Establishment of Labor Relations” stipulates:“If an employer hires a worker without entering into a written employment contract, but the following conditions are simultaneously met, the employment relationship shall be deemed to exist.” (I) The employer and the employee possess the qualifications as legal entities prescribed by laws and regulations; (II) The various labor rules and regulations formulated by the employer in accordance with the law apply to the employee, who is subject to the employer’s management and engages in remunerated work arranged by the employer; (III) The labor provided by the employee constitutes an integral part of the employer’s business.

Accordingly, an employment relationship refers to the rights and obligations arising from a worker’s status as a member of the employing unit and the provision of remunerated labor under its management. In addition to providing labor, employees must also submit to the employer’s management, comply with its arrangements, and observe its rules and regulations, such as those governing attendance, performance evaluations, and disciplinary measures.

[See Note 2]The essential characteristic of an employment relationship is dominant labor management, meaning that there exists a strong degree of personal subordination, economic dependence, and organizational subordination between the employee and the employer.[See Note 3]

Case Study Interpretation

In practice, courts typically examine whether the online streamer has entered into a relevant agreement with the company and how that agreement is actually performed, including whether there exists an agreement between the streamer and the company to establish an employment relationship, or whether a de facto employment relationship exists between the two parties.

(I) Cases where a webcaster does not have an employment relationship with the company they are affiliated with.

In cases where courts have determined that no employment relationship exists between a live-streaming host and the company they work for, the parties typically have not entered into a written employment contract. Instead, they have executed a written agreement—such as a brokerage contract, an agency agreement, or a cooperation agreement—that sets forth a relatively balanced allocation of rights and obligations. The live‑streaming host enjoys a degree of autonomy in determining the location, content, and schedule of their broadcasts, and the parties share revenue according to an agreed‑upon ratio. Furthermore, the live‑streaming content does not constitute a core component of the company’s principal business activities, and the host exhibits only weak personal and economic subordination to the company.

Furthermore, even if a livestreamer has entered into an agency agreement with their company, if the livestreamer was still a minor at the time of signing the agreement and the company failed to obtain consent from the minor’s legal guardian, courts may, in practice, determine that no employment relationship exists between the parties on the grounds that the livestreamer lacks the requisite capacity to be a party to an employment contract. In labor dispute cases involving online streamers who conduct team-based live broadcasts, the management exercised by the company over team streamers is not necessarily deemed to constitute labor management in practice.

Summary of the Judgment:

In case No. (2021) Sichuan 0115 Minchu 865, the streamer did not enter into a written employment contract with their company; instead, the two parties signed an “Artist Signing Agreement.” The court finds that, according to the Artist Contract entered into between Li Moumou and a certain company, the agreement stipulates that Li Moumou engages the company as his or her exclusive agent. During the term of the contract, the company is authorized to act on Li Moumou’s behalf in all commercial or non-commercial activities related to performing arts, including live streaming, publishing, performances, radio, television, advertising, film, audio recording, video recording, as well as any activities pertaining to Li Moumou’s public image.

LiSo-and-so paid the company brokerage fees for this purpose. Both parties will split the monthly backend revenue fund generated by the streamer on a pro-rata basis. Therefore, Li and the company did not have a mutual agreement to establish an employment relationship at the time of entering into the contract. From the perspective of personal subordination, Li’s livestreaming location, content, duration, and time slots are not fixed, and his livestreaming activities do not indicate that they constitute the performance of duties on behalf of the company. The management regulations imposed on Li by the company, arising from their cooperative relationship, should not be regarded as internal rules and regulations that establish a relationship of personal subordination between the two parties.

From an economic income perspective, Li’s livestreaming revenue primarily consists of tips received from fans attracted through his online livestreams. His company does not participate in or control the amount of revenue generated by Li’s livestreaming activities; it merely distributes proceeds according to the agreed-upon profit-sharing ratio. Furthermore, the guaranteed minimum income stipulated in the agreement between Li and his company serves only as a safeguard and incentive within their cooperative arrangement, rather than constituting the primary source of his income.

From the perspective of job duties, Li registered with a third-party live-streaming platform through his employer. The live-streaming platform he uses is owned and operated by a third party, and the content he streams does not fall within the scope of his company’s business operations. Specifically, his company’s business scope does not include activities such as disseminating audio-visual programs over information networks or engaging in live-streaming.

Accordingly, the court determined that the evidence submitted by Li was insufficient to establish a legally recognized employment relationship between Li and the company.

In case No. (2023) Sichuan 0114 Minchu 10651, the court held that, based on the terms of the Internet Performance Agency Contract signed between Hu and his employer, the contract primarily stipulated that the company would provide agency services for Hu’s online performance career and enhance his ability to monetize traffic. Hu was required to comply with the company’s arrangements and devote himself to the online performance business, and the contract also specified matters such as live-streaming duration and the method of commission allocation.

However, the content of the “Internet Entertainment Agency Contract” signed by both parties does not meet the characteristics of an employment contract; it merely indicates that the company provides entertainment agency services and shares the proceeds with Hu. Therefore, the “Internet Entertainment Agency Contract” is not an employment contract. Hu’s remuneration was not a salary paid by his employer, but rather a share of the proceeds generated from the virtual gifts he received; the performing activities undertaken by Hu were also not part of his employer’s business operations; and the evidence submitted by Hu is insufficient to demonstrate that he was subject to the management and control of his employer’s internal rules and regulations.

Accordingly, the court found that Hu’s evidence to support his claim of an employment relationship with Company X was insufficient.

In case No. (2024) Sichuan 0108 Minchu 17264, Xu was between the ages of 17 and 18 when he entered into a Live Streaming Cooperation Agreement with a certain company. The court held that the “Guiding Opinions on Strengthening the Standardized Management of Online Live Streaming,” jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Office of the National Campaign Against Pornography and Illegal Publications, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the State Administration for Market Regulation, and the National Radio and Television Administration, stipulates: “6. Strengthen the protection of minors.”

Online live-streaming platforms shall strictly prohibit providing network anchor account registration services to minors under the age of 16. For adults who are at least 16 but under 18 years old, consent from their legal guardian must be obtained before providing such services. The company has failed to submit evidence demonstrating that, when it entered into the Live Streaming Cooperation Agreement with Mr. Xu for the purpose of conducting top-up and reward‑related live streaming activities, it had obtained the consent of Mr. Xu’s legal guardian. Consequently, the Live Streaming Cooperation Agreement signed by both parties is invalid, and Mr. Xu does not possess the requisite capacity to be employed by the company as a network anchor; therefore, no employment relationship can be established between the two parties.

Accordingly, the court determined that no employment relationship existed between Xu and his employer.

In case No. (2024) Sichuan 0108 Minchu 11832, the court held as follows: First, pursuant to the Live Streaming Cooperation Agreement entered into by both parties, the agreement sets forth provisions regarding the scope of cooperation and the duration of live broadcasts. The company’s scheduling of its contracted streamers’ broadcast times constitutes a mutual understanding reached by both parties. Although Zhao argued that WeChat chat records could prove that leave requests required approval, given the cooperative relationship between the company and Zhao, and considering that Zhao’s streaming is conducted as part of a team, it is reasonable for the company to manage Zhao’s leave requests, which is also a necessary measure for fulfilling the cooperative obligations under the agreement. Therefore, this is insufficient to establish the existence of an employer–employee management relationship between the two parties.

Secondly, in the process of generating revenue, the company where Zhao works provides him with branding, guides his livestreaming activities, arranges his livestreaming room, and organizes dance practice, among other things. In turn, Zhao showcases his talents during his livestreams to generate income for the channel (including, but not limited to, virtual gift value and fan‑donated gifts). Zhao’s remuneration is directly tied to the revenue generated by his livestreaming channel, which is divided between the parties in accordance with the livestreaming cooperation agreement they have signed. During the performance of the contract, the company did not exercise any economic control over Zhao, and no economic subordination existed between the two parties.

Accordingly, the court held that no employment relationship existed between Zhao and his employer.

(II) Cases where a network anchor and the company they work for have an employment relationship.

In cases where the court has determined that a relationship of employment exists between an online streamer and the company they work for, the streamer and the company typically have not entered into any formal agreement. The court generally bases its finding on the existence of a strong degree of personal subordination and economic dependence, as well as the fact that the labor provided by the online streamer constitutes an integral part of the company’s business operations, thereby establishing a de facto employment relationship between the two parties.

In case No. (2023) Chu 0116 Min Chu 9851, the livestreaming sales host did not enter into an employment contract or any other relevant contract with the company. The court held that, during the period of employment, the company assigned work tasks to Chen via WeChat and reimbursed meal expenses upon Chen’s request; in light of Chen’s workload and working hours, a relatively stable relationship of personal dependence had been established between the two parties.

At the same time, Chen also handled work-related matters in accordance with the company’s requirements, thereby demonstrating that he has been subject to the company’s relevant rules and regulations, which is consistent with the subordinate nature of an employment relationship. Although the parties have not entered into any agreement, they have nonetheless fulfilled their respective rights and obligations in practice. The company argues that Mr. Chen merely sought reimbursement from Company X for materials consumed during his probationary period, which does not prove that he was hired or that he worked for Company X for one month. However, the company has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate its claims and shall bear the adverse consequences of failing to meet its evidentiary burden.

Accordingly, the court holds that a labor relationship existed between Chen and his employer during the relevant period.

In case No. (2024) Sichuan 0114 Minchu 2870, the court held that Mr. Pu was employed by a certain company as a livestreamer, with his working hours and livestream content both subject to the company’s arrangement and management. Moreover, his livestream content constituted an integral part of the company’s business operations; therefore, it should be determined that a labor relationship exists between Mr. Pu and the company.

In case No. (2025) Sichuan 0108 Minchu 3507, the streamer did not enter into any relevant agreement with the company they were employed by. The court holds as follows: First, Mr. Ou and his employer both possess the requisite legal capacity to establish a labor relationship; second, the work performed by Mr. Ou, including filming beauty‑influencer videos, falls within the scope of the employer’s business operations; third, although there were no monetary transactions related to wages between Mr. Ou and his employer, the essential element for the establishment of a labor relationship lies in the employer’s management and control over the employee.

Based on the evidence on file, Ou performed his duties at the workplace provided by his company and was subject to the company’s attendance management, including mandatory clock-in and clock-out. Moreover, Ou prepared his makeup and hair as required by the company and filmed videos; the tools, equipment, and other production resources necessary for the filming were all supplied by the company. Furthermore, the company reimbursed Ou for the wig props he purchased for the video shoots. Therefore, it can be reasonably determined that a de facto employment relationship exists between the two parties.

In case No. (2021) Chu 0105 Min Chu 21343, the court held as follows: First, both the company and Xiao Mou possess the requisite legal qualifications as prescribed by laws and regulations, and the labor provided by Xiao Mou constitutes an integral part of the company’s business operations. Second, in this case, Company X contends that the relationship between the parties is one of cooperation rather than employment, and has submitted the “Exclusive Artist Management and Agency Cooperation Agreement” entered into by both parties, together with its annex, the “Confirmation of Revenue Settlement Ratios,” among other evidence. Upon examination of the aforementioned evidence, although the agreement is titled a “cooperation agreement,” its terms reveal that during the performance of the contract, Mr. Xiao exhibited a clear personal dependence on the company, was subject to its management and constraints, and that the relationship between the parties lacks the characteristics of equality and autonomy typically found in ordinary civil legal relationships.

Third, the company strictly regulated Xiao through its “Live Streaming Regulations for Streamers,” and its backend system also indicated that it retained data on live-streaming duration for wage calculation. This demonstrates that both parties had a genuine intent to establish an employment relationship. During the course of his work, Xiao was subject to the company’s management and complied with its rules and regulations, thereby establishing an employment relationship between the two parties.

Accordingly, the court holds that the relevant provisions of labor law should govern the relationship between the parties.

Conclusion

Case-handling philosophy

As one of the emerging forms of employment, the number of online streamers is rapidly increasing. The legal characterization of the relationship between streamers and their employing companies determines how both parties may choose to protect their rights and effectively resolve related disputes. In different factual scenarios, the determination of the legal relationship between the parties must be made by considering various factors, including the specific circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution, the nature of the work performed, and the source of the income derived therefrom.

References:

1.The Intermediate People’s Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, has released Case No. 3 from its Top Ten Typical Labor Dispute Cases of 2021: the labor dispute between Guo and a certain artist management company.

2.Civil Ruling No. (2024) Sichuan Min Shen 1574.

3.Guiding Case No. 239 of the Supreme People’s Court.

4.Article 1 of the “Notice Concerning Matters Relating to the Determination of Labor Relations” issued by the former Ministry of Labor and Social Security.

5.（2021)Sichuan0115Early Republic period865Civil Judgment No. ____.

6.（2023)Sichuan0114Early Republic period10651Civil Judgment No. ____.

7.（2024)Sichuan0108Early Republic period17264Civil Judgment No. ____.

8.（2024)Sichuan0108Early Republic period11832Civil Judgment No. ____.

9.（2023)Sichuan0116Early Republic period9851Civil Judgment No. ____.

10.（2024)Sichuan0114Early Republic period2870Civil Judgment No. ____.

11.（2025)Sichuan0108Early Republic period3507Civil Judgment No. ____.

12.（2021)Sichuan0105Early Republic period21343Civil Judgment No. ____.

Author

Introduction

Deng Shuwen

Member of the Belt and Road Legal Center, full-time lawyer at Zhiheng Chengdu Law Firm.

Business areas:

Dispute resolution, corporate compliance, and international legal services

Attorney Deng Shuwen possesses a solid and diverse academic background: During her undergraduate studies, she graduated from Southwest University of Political Science and Law with a full-time Bachelor of Laws degree; concurrently, she majored in English at Sichuan International Studies University, earning a dual-degree qualification. During her graduate studies, she delved deeply into both domestic and international legal fields, earning a full-time Master of Laws degree in Insurance Law from the University of Connecticut School of Law and a full-time Master of Laws degree in International Law from the School of International Law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law, thereby establishing a professional knowledge base that combines a global perspective with a strong local foundation.

Attorney Deng Shuwen’s professional background combines practical experience with a judicial perspective: She previously worked in the dispute resolution and capital markets teams of a law firm, where she was deeply involved in representing clients in various civil and commercial disputes and in corporate investment‑financing compliance matters, thereby developing solid practical skills in contract review, risk management, and both non‑litigation and litigation matters. Subsequently, she joined the civil and commercial adjudication team of a primary-level people’s court in the central urban area of Chengdu, gaining firsthand experience throughout the entire trial process, becoming thoroughly familiar with judicial reasoning and key aspects of courtroom practice, and cultivating a more profound understanding of the core challenges in dispute resolution and the strategies for addressing them.

This diverse professional background, spanning multiple law firms and judicial authorities, not only equips her with the dual perspectives of both “advocate” and “adjudicator,” but also enables her to amass solid and extensive practical experience in both litigation and non-litigation matters, as well as in domestic and international legal fields. As a result, she is able to precisely identify client needs and deliver legal solutions that are both highly professional and practically applicable.

This article and its contents are shared by

for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal opinions, advice, or a basis for decision-making provided by the firm or its attorneys. If you require legal advice or a professional legal analysis, please contact the specialized attorneys at

, or send us a private message on our WeChat official account and leave your contact information. If you wish to reprint this article, please contact the official account editor via the backend.

Zhiheng · Introduction