【Weekly Game Law】Kaiying Pays RMB 199 Million to Settle Legend IP Dispute

(1) Kaiying Network’s Ten-Year Legend IP Dispute Ends: RMB 199 Million Settlement

The decade-long copyright dispute between Kaiying Network and the parent company of the Legend IP, Wemade, has reached its conclusion.

On February 11, Kaiying Network announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary Shanghai Kaiying had signed a settlement agreement with Legend IP Co., Ltd., agreeing to pay approximately RMB 199 million in settlement to fully resolve a joint liability debt of RMB 481 million.

The dispute dates back to 2016. The original copyright of the Legend game was jointly owned by Korea’s Wemade and Actoz Soft.

In 2016, Zhejiang Huanyou, a subsidiary of Kaiying Network, signed a licensing agreement with Wemade, obtaining the rights to develop and operate the Legend mobile and web games in Mainland China. However, Actoz argued that Wemade had granted the authorization without its consent, violating the agreement between the co-copyright holders. Actoz then applied to the court for behavioral preservation, which prevented the licensing agreement from being carried out.

Subsequently, because Zhejiang Huanyou failed to pay licensing fees as agreed, Legend IP (the successor entity after Wemade’s corporate restructuring) initiated arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Singapore, requesting compensation.

After the arbitral award supported compensation of RMB 481 million, Legend IP filed a lawsuit claiming corporate personality confusion between the parent and subsidiary companies, requesting that the parent company Shanghai Kaiying assume joint liability for repayment.

In 2022, the Shanghai High People’s Court upheld in second instance that Shanghai Kaiying should bear joint liability for the RMB 481 million debt.

Facing significant pressure, Shanghai Kaiying initiated a counter-arbitration in 2022, claiming compensation from Legend IP for losses caused by the licensing dispute.

In April 2025, the ICC arbitration tribunal ruled that Legend IP must pay RMB 224.5 million in compensation to Shanghai Kaiying. This ruling became a key bargaining chip in negotiations, creating a situation of mutual debt offset.

On February 10, 2026, with mediation from the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court, the parties formally signed a settlement agreement. Shanghai Kaiying agreed to pay approximately RMB 199 million, thereby fully resolving the RMB 481 million joint liability debt. Both parties also agreed to withdraw all lawsuits and arbitration proceedings worldwide.

(2) Game Promotion Company Punished for Using “Privilege Accounts” to Attract Players

In July 2025, a whistleblower contacted the “privileged account reservation service” of Fujian Tianyi Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. via WeChat in an attempt to obtain a “privileged account” or “internal resource account” for the game Snake Endless Battle.

The company claimed that by participating in testing of another game it promoted, Immortal Path Struggle, players could reserve such privileged accounts.

Investigations revealed that the terms “privileged account,” “internal resource account,” and “official” used in the company’s promotions had no connection with the official operator of Snake Endless Battle. They were self-assigned by the company, and it never provided the promised privileged accounts to players who completed the testing.

By the time the case was uncovered, the company had attracted 38 players to participate in the testing of Immortal Path Struggle, earning RMB 51.59.

The Zhangzhou Municipal Administration for Market Regulation determined that the company’s conduct constituted misleading commercial promotion and failure to fulfill promotional commitments.

Considering the small amount of illegal gains and the company’s cooperation with the investigation, the authority ordered the company to immediately cease and rectify the illegal conduct, and imposed confiscation and fines totaling RMB 1,016.24, pursuant to the 2025 revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Protection Law.

Nuocheng Commentary:

This case reflects a typical malicious user-acquisition strategy in game promotion. The core logic is to leverage the popularity of a well-known game and lure players with promises of scarce resources such as “privileged accounts” or “internal accounts,” thereby diverting players to another game being promoted.

The company used terms such as “privileged account,” “internal resource account,” and “official” despite having no affiliation with the official operator of Snake Endless Battle and being unable to provide the promised services. Such conduct constitutes typical false or misleading commercial promotion.

At the same time, the conduct not only deceived consumers but also harmed the rights and interests of other legitimate market participants and disrupted fair market competition, potentially constituting unfair competition through commercial confusion.

In response to such promotion schemes, affected game companies may not only seek remedies through civil litigation, but also use administrative complaints to more efficiently stop the infringing conduct.

(3) Cracked IAA Game Version Removing Ads Recognized as Online Unfair Competition

The popular casual game XX Simulator has enjoyed high popularity since its launch in 2020. Its core business model allows players to obtain game resources by watching advertisements.

In 2025, the game operator, a Chengdu-based company, discovered that a download website was offering a cracked version of the game labeled “unlimited ad vouchers, diamonds, and cash.” This allowed users to obtain resources without watching advertisements.

The company filed a lawsuit in July 2025 against the operator of the download site and other parties on the grounds of unfair competition.

During the litigation, one defendant company quietly deregistered, while another defendant company from Suzhou failed to appear in court despite being summoned.

Investigations showed that the Suzhou company had previously been the registered domain entity of the website. During its registration period, the cracked game was uploaded. Later the domain ownership was transferred to another company solely owned by an individual named Zhang, yet the infringing game was never removed.

The Chengdu Internet Court heard the case. The judge clearly stated that when an infringer interferes with or damages another party’s legitimate online products, disrupts its business model, seizes trading opportunities, and weakens its competitive advantage, such conduct constitutes online unfair competition.

The court also noted that if a company is deregistered without lawful liquidation procedures, its shareholders should bear corresponding liability.

At present, the cracked download links on the website have become invalid. However, because one defendant company has already been deregistered, the enforcement of compensation still faces significant challenges.

Nuocheng Commentary:

By providing cracked versions of the game that allow users to obtain resources without watching advertisements, the defendant directly disrupted the normal operation of the plaintiff’s lawful online product. This resulted in the loss of advertising revenue and weakened the plaintiff’s competitive advantage.

Such conduct violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (special provisions on online unfair competition) as well as the principle of good faith under Article 2, constituting a typical act of interfering with and damaging another party’s lawful business operations.

Although the court supported the plaintiff’s claims, the deregistration of the defendant company may lead to difficulties in enforcement.

Therefore, rights holders are advised to verify the corporate status of defendants in advance when initiating rights-protection actions, apply for property preservation when necessary, and include multiple entities involved in the infringement chain as co-defendants, so as to ensure that a favorable judgment can ultimately be enforced.

(4) Google Play Reduces Global Commission to 20% and Opens Third-Party Payments and App Stores

On March 4, 2026, Google announced major adjustments to the Android ecosystem and the Google Play store rules, widely regarded as one of the largest institutional reforms in Android app distribution in recent years.

Under the new policy, the long-standing 30% commission on Google Play will be reduced to 20% or lower, and developers will be allowed to integrate third-party payment systems within apps or guide users to external websites to complete purchases.

The new fee structure will be divided into two components: a “base service fee” and a “Google Play billing fee.” Developers who continue using Google’s official billing system in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area will still pay an additional approximately 5% regional billing fee.

In some cooperative programs, the rate may be further reduced. For example, developers participating in the App Experience Program or the Google Play Games Level Up project may see the service fee reduced to 15% for new installations and 20% for existing transactions, while subscription applications may have their fees reduced to 10%.

In addition to commission reform, Google also introduced the “Registered App Stores” mechanism, allowing third-party app stores to be more easily installed and operated on Android systems if they meet security and quality standards.

For example, Epic Games Store may apply to join the program. The plan is expected to launch with the Android version update at the end of 2026 and will first be rolled out outside the United States.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney expressed support for the changes, stating that they would help strengthen the openness of the Android platform.

The reform is closely related to Google’s previous settlement with Epic and may encourage more application stores and payment systems to enter the Android ecosystem.

Nuocheng Commentary:

Google’s reform of the Google Play ecosystem is essentially an institutional response to the global antitrust and platform regulatory pressures that have intensified in recent years.

Disputes surrounding app-store commissions and payment restrictions have triggered regulatory scrutiny in many jurisdictions. The long-running litigation between Epic Games and Google, as well as their settlement in 2025, directly contributed to the policy changes.

By reducing commissions and allowing third-party payments and app stores, Google is effectively reducing its control over the app distribution and payment ecosystem, thereby mitigating potential antitrust risks.

For game developers expanding overseas, the reform has three major implications.

First, the reduction in commission rates will directly improve revenue distribution structures, particularly for subscription-based and newly installed transactions.

Second, allowing alternative payment systems means developers can establish their own payment infrastructure in certain regions, reducing reliance on platform billing systems. However, this also requires developers to assume additional compliance responsibilities, including consumer protection, payment security, and tax reporting.

Third, the opening of third-party app store mechanisms may change the long-standing Play-dominated distribution landscape of the Android ecosystem and provide opportunities for major publishers to establish their own distribution channels.

Overall, the reform will make the Android ecosystem more open, but it also means developers must adopt more complex global strategies in distribution channels, payments, and compliance.