JC Master Special Issue | Examining Conditional Civil Legal Acts Through the Lens of the “Exorbitantly Priced Game-Boosting Order”

Conditional Civil Legal Acts from the Perspective of “Exorbitantly Priced Game-Boosting Orders”

At present, online games have become an integral part of many people’s daily lives. In most online titles, there is a leaderboard system—whether it goes by names like “ranked matches,” “ladder,” or “boosting”—which essentially operates on the same principle: a ranked‑match system that pairs players based on their competitive skill levels. Consequently, related industries such as gaming companionship and account‑leveling services have also flourished, with rates ranging from 5 to 10 yuan per “star” and tens to hundreds of yuan per rank. Despite the fact that numerous game operators have introduced policies and regulations to curb practices that undermine user experience and compromise game fairness, account‑leveling remains difficult to eradicate due to strong market demand, complex industry profit chains, and significant challenges in oversight and enforcement.
According to the “In-Depth Research Report on China’s Game‑Boosting Industry and Future Development Trends (2024–2030)” published by Gongyan Network, the transaction value of game‑boosting services reached RMB 3.76 billion in 2024, underscoring the sector’s substantial market size. At the same time, legal risks in this industry are mounting rapidly.
Recently, an online case involving game‑boosting services has been circulating. On the surface, it appears to be a dispute over excessively high commission fees for such services; however, from a legal perspective, the central issue is not whether the fee was unreasonable, but rather this: when one party is on the verge of fulfilling the contract, can they artificially intervene to prevent the conditions for performance from being met and, on that basis, refuse to pay?
I. Basic Facts of the Case: A “Time-Limited Practice Agreement” with Clearly Defined Completion Conditions
According to publicly available information, the general terms of this order are as follows:
(1) Upgrade a certain game account from “Star Glory Level 1” to “Kingdom Level 100”; (2) The agreed commission is RMB 10,000; (3) Completion is required within 10 hours; (4) If the task is not completed within the stipulated timeframe, no payment will be made, and the operative shall bear the loss of the deposit.
In terms of transaction arrangements, the two parties have also introduced a so‑called “guarantor” as an intermediary: the party placing the order pays the guarantor a commission in advance, while the party accepting the order deposits a security deposit with the guarantor; the guarantor then facilitates settlement upon completion of the task. Specifically, the order placer first remits a 10,000‑yuan commission to the guarantor, and the operative likewise hands over a 10,000‑yuan deposit to the guarantor, with the guarantor acting as the central clearing agent to ensure “fairness.”
At this point, legal professionals are already well familiar with the concept: a conditional civil juridical act takes effect when the condition is fulfilled, but remains without legal effect if the condition is not fulfilled. In other words, the bet hinges on whether “the match can be completed within 10 hours.”
II. The Boosters’ Response and the Incident’s Progression: They boarded an “armored vehicle,” livestreamed the entire session, and achieved an exceptionally high win rate.
Of course, anyone who dares to take on a mission like this isn’t some reckless fool. After assessing the difficulty, the enforcer gathered a few regular teammates to form a squad—what the gaming community calls an “armored car,” meaning a team of highly skilled players. The five members are all strong, work seamlessly together, and have verifiable track records.
Here’s a quick estimate for those who don’t play Honor of Kings: With the “Armored Vehicle” support, if the account owner’s team members maintain consistent performance—achieving near‑100% win rate, frequently securing top-tier placements and occasionally gold medals, and racking up three to four stars per match—it’s entirely feasible to reach 100 stars in 30–40 games. Adding an MVP bonus can speed things up even further. Throughout the process, the gameplay is live‑streamed to ensure transparency and high efficiency. This approach not only boosts the chances of success but also provides solid evidence in case of any disputes down the line.
However, as the power-leveling service provider neared their goal—having already reached over 80 stars—the client began to intervene:
(1) Forcibly interrupting the game (e.g., topping up an account, resulting in the account being logged out); (2) Proposing to amend the agreement and settle payments according to progress (e.g., paying 10 yuan per star, far below the original commission); (3) Furthermore, the client even reported the order to the police on suspicion of gambling, attempting to invalidate the agreement through this means.
After communicating with the police, the game‑boosting service provider obtained conofficeation that the agreement did not constitute gambling, as it was essentially a service contract rather than a pure game of chance. However, this also revealed the client’s malicious intent: an attempt to evade obligations through improper means.
III. The Role and Issues of the Guarantor: Progress‑based settlement may appear fair, but in reality it is not.
In this order, the guarantor acts as an intermediary, responsible for escrowing the funds and overseeing execution.
In the end, the guarantor settled approximately 8,000 yuan with the power-leveling service provider, based on the progress already completed (over 80 stars), and the matter appeared to have reached a satisfactory resolution.
However, from a legal standpoint, the guarantor’s approach merely amounts to muddling through; it neither complies with the contract nor with the law. The guarantor should act strictly in accordance with the agreement’s terms, rather than exercising discretionary judgment to “settle according to progress,” since this is not a contract for services (where payment corresponds to the work completed) but rather a conditional civil legal act—specifically, the condition being: raising the account’s rank from Star‑1 to King‑100 within ten hours. Under such a structure, the most critical issue is not “how many stars are achieved,” but rather: who is responsible for preventing the condition from being fulfilled.
IV. Application of Law: An Interpretation of Article 159 of the Civil Code
Here, we will focus on explaining the provisions of the Civil Code:
Article 159: “In a conditional civil legal act, if a party improperly prevents the fulfillment of the condition for their own benefit, the condition shall be deemed to have been fulfilled; if the party improperly brings about the fulfillment of the condition, the condition shall be deemed not to have been fulfilled.”
This provision embodies the principle of good faith and fair dealing under the law, aiming to prevent parties from maliciously undermining the agreement. Put simply, if one party, in pursuit of its own interests (such as avoiding payment), deliberately obstructs the fulfillment of a condition, the law will deem that condition to have been satisfied, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of the party that has complied with the contract. In this case:
(1) The principal forcibly blocks the account, preventing the service provider from achieving the goal of reaching King rank with 100 stars within 10 hours; (2) This conduct satisfies the elements of the offense: acting for one’s own benefit—by avoiding payment of a RMB 10,000 commission—and improperly obstructing the fulfillment of a condition.
Accordingly, under the law, this should be deemed to mean that “the condition has been fulfilled,” i.e., the account‑leveling service provider has completed the obligations stipulated in the agreement.
Under the legal fiction of “deemed condition fulfilled,” this transaction should not be apportioned according to the “80%-plus progress” criterion; instead, the principal must pay the full commission of RMB 10,000 and refund the power‑leveling service provider’s deposit of RMB 10,000. As an intermediary, the guarantor is likewise obligated to perform its duties under the agreement, such as ensuring the return of funds.
V. Conclusion: The Spirit of Contract Must Not Be Taken Lightly
This farcical “sky-high bounty” saga has laid bare the erosion of contractual integrity in certain online transactions. Whether it involves game‑leveling services, gaming companionship, or the burgeoning realm of emotional labor, as long as both parties’ expressions of intent are genuine and do not contravene mandatory legal provisions, the agreements they enter into carry legal force. The law will safeguard the interests of the party that honors its obligations, and any attempt to evade contractual duties through malicious breach of contract or artificial manipulation of condition‑satisfaction will find no legal support. — THE END —

(This article reflects the author’s personal views and is intended solely for informational purposes; it does not constitute legal advice or an interpretation of the law by JC Master Law Office. This disclaimer is hereby made.)