.png){kind=logo}
September 2026
The Supreme People's Court Releases Analysis of the People's Court Daily's Top Ten Cases of 2025 (Part II)
Among the People's Court Daily's Top Ten Cases of 2025 released by the Supreme People's Court (SPC), three cases have attracted widespread public attention: the case involving minors who urinated into a hotpot at a restaurant, the wrongful dismissal of an employee for closing his eyes for three minutes after working continuously for more than eight hours, and the case concerning a tattoo studio that unlawfully provided tattoo services to a minor. Although these cases involve different factual circumstances, they collectively demonstrate the important role of the rule of law in responding to social concerns and regulating conduct within society.
I. Minors Urinating into a Hotpot: Balancing Legal Accountability with Education and Protection
In this case, several minors played a prank by urinating into a hotpot at a restaurant and subsequently uploaded a video of their conduct to the internet. Their actions not only caused significant disruption to the restaurant's normal business operations but also generated widespread public concern regarding food safety and caused considerable psychological distress among consumers. The restaurant subsequently filed a civil action, seeking compensation from the minors and their legal guardians.
From a legal perspective, the case constitutes a typical civil tort dispute. Under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, although the direct tortfeasors were minors, those who, through fault, infringe upon the lawful civil rights and interests of others and cause damage shall bear tort liability, while their legal guardians are required to assume the corresponding civil liability in accordance with the law.
A notable feature of the judgment is the court's balanced approach, which combined legal accountability with the principles of education and protection. On the one hand, the court required the guardians to compensate the injured party, thereby reinforcing their legal duty to supervise and educate their children. On the other hand, the court took into account the minors' age and emphasized corrective education and rehabilitation, reflecting the judiciary's human-centered approach while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the victim.
II. Employee Dismissed for Closing His Eyes for Three Minutes After Working More Than Eight Consecutive Hours: Judicial Protection of Employees' Lawful Rights
In this case, an employee who had worked continuously for more than eight hours briefly closed his eyes for approximately three minutes while at his workstation. The employer characterized the conduct as sleeping on duty and terminated the employment contract pursuant to its internal rules and regulations. The employee challenged the dismissal through labor arbitration and subsequent litigation. The court ultimately held that the employer lacked a lawful basis for terminating the employment contract and therefore constituted an unlawful dismissal, requiring the employer to bear the corresponding legal liabilities.
China's labor legislation, including the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China and the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, provides that an employer may terminate an employment contract only where statutory conditions are satisfied and the principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness are observed. Even where an employee violates internal workplace rules, termination is justified only where the misconduct constitutes a serious breach of labor discipline or company regulations.
In this case, the employee had already worked continuously for more than eight hours, and there was no evidence demonstrating prolonged sleeping during working hours, gross negligence, or substantial losses to the employer. By mechanically applying its internal rules without considering the employee's actual working conditions or the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the employer failed to satisfy the principles of proportionality and fairness.
The judgment sends a clear judicial message: although employers enjoy the lawful right to manage their businesses, managerial authority is not without limits. Internal workplace policies must comply with applicable laws and must not infringe upon employees' legally protected rights, including their dignity, right to rest, and other statutory labor rights.
III. Tattoo Studio Providing Tattoo Services to a Minor: Upholding the Principle of the Best Interests of the Child
This case concerned a tattoo studio that provided tattoo services to a minor despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the customer was a minor and without obtaining the consent of the minor's legal guardian. Following the procedure, the minor and the guardian brought a civil action seeking compensation for tattoo removal expenses and damages for emotional distress. The court upheld the principal claims, holding that the tattoo studio had violated national regulations governing tattoo services for minors and should bear tort liability accordingly.
In 2022, the relevant Chinese authorities expressly prohibited the provision of tattoo services to minors. This regulatory framework reflects the State's heightened protection of minors' physical and mental well-being and is consistent with the principle of the best interests of the child established under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Minors. As a professional service provider, the tattoo studio was subject to a heightened duty of care. Before providing tattoo services, it was required to verify the customer's identity and refuse services to minors. Commercial interests cannot justify conduct that contravenes mandatory legal requirements.
The judgment not only required the tattoo studio to reimburse the costs of tattoo removal but also confirmed that operators engaging in unlawful business practices should bear corresponding tort liability. The case therefore provides important guidance for regulating the tattoo industry and strengthening the protection of minors.
These cases illustrate that the development of the rule of law is reflected not only in comprehensive legislative and institutional reforms but also in the fair adjudication of individual disputes. The hotpot contamination case underscores the importance of fostering public awareness of legal responsibility and respect for social norms. The unlawful dismissal case reaffirms that employees' lawful rights are protected by law and that managerial authority must be exercised within legal boundaries. The tattoo studio case further reinforces the principle that the protection of minors is a shared responsibility of society and highlights the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding children's best interests through the rule of law.
I. Minors Urinating into a Hotpot: Balancing Legal Accountability with Education and Protection
In this case, several minors played a prank by urinating into a hotpot at a restaurant and subsequently uploaded a video of their conduct to the internet. Their actions not only caused significant disruption to the restaurant's normal business operations but also generated widespread public concern regarding food safety and caused considerable psychological distress among consumers. The restaurant subsequently filed a civil action, seeking compensation from the minors and their legal guardians.
From a legal perspective, the case constitutes a typical civil tort dispute. Under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, although the direct tortfeasors were minors, those who, through fault, infringe upon the lawful civil rights and interests of others and cause damage shall bear tort liability, while their legal guardians are required to assume the corresponding civil liability in accordance with the law.
A notable feature of the judgment is the court's balanced approach, which combined legal accountability with the principles of education and protection. On the one hand, the court required the guardians to compensate the injured party, thereby reinforcing their legal duty to supervise and educate their children. On the other hand, the court took into account the minors' age and emphasized corrective education and rehabilitation, reflecting the judiciary's human-centered approach while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the victim.
II. Employee Dismissed for Closing His Eyes for Three Minutes After Working More Than Eight Consecutive Hours: Judicial Protection of Employees' Lawful Rights
In this case, an employee who had worked continuously for more than eight hours briefly closed his eyes for approximately three minutes while at his workstation. The employer characterized the conduct as sleeping on duty and terminated the employment contract pursuant to its internal rules and regulations. The employee challenged the dismissal through labor arbitration and subsequent litigation. The court ultimately held that the employer lacked a lawful basis for terminating the employment contract and therefore constituted an unlawful dismissal, requiring the employer to bear the corresponding legal liabilities.
China's labor legislation, including the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China and the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, provides that an employer may terminate an employment contract only where statutory conditions are satisfied and the principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness are observed. Even where an employee violates internal workplace rules, termination is justified only where the misconduct constitutes a serious breach of labor discipline or company regulations.
In this case, the employee had already worked continuously for more than eight hours, and there was no evidence demonstrating prolonged sleeping during working hours, gross negligence, or substantial losses to the employer. By mechanically applying its internal rules without considering the employee's actual working conditions or the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the employer failed to satisfy the principles of proportionality and fairness.
The judgment sends a clear judicial message: although employers enjoy the lawful right to manage their businesses, managerial authority is not without limits. Internal workplace policies must comply with applicable laws and must not infringe upon employees' legally protected rights, including their dignity, right to rest, and other statutory labor rights.
III. Tattoo Studio Providing Tattoo Services to a Minor: Upholding the Principle of the Best Interests of the Child
This case concerned a tattoo studio that provided tattoo services to a minor despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the customer was a minor and without obtaining the consent of the minor's legal guardian. Following the procedure, the minor and the guardian brought a civil action seeking compensation for tattoo removal expenses and damages for emotional distress. The court upheld the principal claims, holding that the tattoo studio had violated national regulations governing tattoo services for minors and should bear tort liability accordingly.
In 2022, the relevant Chinese authorities expressly prohibited the provision of tattoo services to minors. This regulatory framework reflects the State's heightened protection of minors' physical and mental well-being and is consistent with the principle of the best interests of the child established under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Minors. As a professional service provider, the tattoo studio was subject to a heightened duty of care. Before providing tattoo services, it was required to verify the customer's identity and refuse services to minors. Commercial interests cannot justify conduct that contravenes mandatory legal requirements.
The judgment not only required the tattoo studio to reimburse the costs of tattoo removal but also confirmed that operators engaging in unlawful business practices should bear corresponding tort liability. The case therefore provides important guidance for regulating the tattoo industry and strengthening the protection of minors.
These cases illustrate that the development of the rule of law is reflected not only in comprehensive legislative and institutional reforms but also in the fair adjudication of individual disputes. The hotpot contamination case underscores the importance of fostering public awareness of legal responsibility and respect for social norms. The unlawful dismissal case reaffirms that employees' lawful rights are protected by law and that managerial authority must be exercised within legal boundaries. The tattoo studio case further reinforces the principle that the protection of minors is a shared responsibility of society and highlights the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding children's best interests through the rule of law.
Related Articles
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors' opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.