Under the wave of integration between the concept of metaverse and live streaming economy, the virtual anchor industry has emerged as a hot phenomenon in the field of digital economy with a new model of "middle person+virtual image+traffic operation". This kind of virtual anchor has gained a large number of fans on various video platforms with exquisite anime animation images and interesting interactive ways. The charm of virtual anchors lies in the separation of their virtual image from the real identity of the behind the scenes real person actor, the 'middle person'. Therefore, online platform companies often impose strict confidentiality on the identity of the "middle man" to maintain the mystery of their roles. How to accurately determine the breach of contract losses caused when this virtual "leather case" is actively opened by the "middle person"? Recently, the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, concluded a contract dispute between an animation company and the virtual anchor "Zhongzhi Ren". In September 2023, the plaintiff, a certain animation company, launched a virtual anchor character to promote its original anime works, and signed a "cooperation contract" with the actor defendant Jiang, agreeing that he would serve as the live actor behind the scenes of the virtual anchor character and conduct the live broadcast as the "middle man". The contract involved in the case clearly requires Jiang not to disclose personal identity information. If the virtual anchor's identity is "opened", a penalty of 300000 yuan must be paid. The term 'unboxing' referred to in the 'Cooperation Agreement' refers to the disclosure of the personal identity information of the virtual anchor 'Zhong Ren'. The Internet's definition of "opening the box" generally refers to the behavior of locating the personal information of "people in the middle" and making it public through human flesh search, account theft and other means. Once opened, it almost means the end of the virtual anchor career. I'm here, I'm Jiang XX Just 17 days after the broadcast, Jiang voluntarily revealed his real name during a live stream. A certain animation company believes that this move has led to the leakage of the identity of "Zhong Zhi Ren", which not only caused the interruption of the live broadcast plan and the damage to the virtual anchor's image, but also put the million dollar animation project that was invested in earlier on the brink of crisis. They demand the termination of the contract and claim a penalty of 300000 yuan from Jiang for breach of contract. Jiang believes that his act of saying his name during the live broadcast does not constitute "opening the box". At that time, the number of viewers in the live broadcast room was sparse, and the name spoken by him was not displayed with subtitles in the live broadcast room, which could not be associated with his specific identity and would not have a substantial impact on the virtual image. Moreover, the penalty clause in the contract is a standard clause that unreasonably increases its liability. It is unfair for the company to demand compensation of 300000 yuan without suffering actual losses. At the same time, Jiang filed a counterclaim, demanding that a certain animation company pay him more than 2000 yuan in remuneration during his live broadcast. The focus of the court's trial in this case is on three points: first, whether the "Cooperation Contract" is a standard contract; Secondly, whether Jiang has committed a breach of contract by "opening the box"; The third question is whether Jiang should bear the liability for breach of contract and the method of assuming the liability for breach of contract. Regarding the dispute over the nature of the contract, the court found through trial that although the contract was drafted by a certain animation company, Jiang, as an experienced and capable actor with negotiation skills, repeatedly proposed modification suggestions within one week before signing, and the final version of the contract was confirmed by both parties through electronic signing, which should be regarded as the result of equal negotiation between both parties. Standard terms are terms that are pre drafted by the parties for repeated use and are not negotiated with the other party at the time of contract formation. The process of "pre drafting and negotiating revisions" between Jiang and a certain animation company does not comply with the core requirement of "standard terms" in the Civil Code that have not been negotiated with the other party. Therefore, the penalty clause stipulated in the contract is legal and valid. The court adopts a comprehensive judgment based on three criteria: the purpose of the contract, the content of the contract, and the characteristics of the industry. The core of the virtual anchor lies in the confidentiality of the identity of the "middle person" in terms of the purpose and content of the contract. The contract clearly stipulates that if the virtual anchor is "unboxed" due to Jiang's negligence or intentional behavior, it constitutes a breach of contract. Jiang, as an actor, mentioned his real name during the live broadcast, and the audience could associate it with his public information by searching, which has violated the confidentiality obligation. Even if only a small number of viewers are present, it still constitutes the agreed upon "opening the box" behavior in the contract. At the level of industry characteristics, the fan stickiness of virtual anchors highly relies on the mystery of the virtual image played by the "middle person". Although Jiang's negligent behavior did not cause a large-scale leak, it has damaged the integrity of the character's persona and may lead to negative consequences in the future. This behavior should be evaluated negatively, and the court has determined that Jiang himself should bear relevant legal responsibilities. Regarding the issue of defining losses, although the contract stipulates a penalty of 300000 yuan for breach of contract, the virtual anchor involved in the case has very little traffic and has not yet gained popularity online. The "unboxing" behavior has not caused widespread impact online, and the actual losses are relatively small at present. And this case cannot demonstrate the high stickiness of the fan audience towards Jiang as a "middle person". The virtual anchor and Jiang do not have "identity identity identity", and the virtual image involved in the case has reuse value. At the same time, a certain animation company did not actively seek a replacement for the "middle man" after the suspension of broadcasting, allowing the scope of losses to expand and bearing certain responsibilities. In the end, the court comprehensively considered the transaction type, performance situation, performance period, degree of fault of the parties, live streaming data, live streaming revenue, and other circumstances of the "Cooperation Contract", and determined that the liquidated damages of 300000 yuan were excessively higher than the actual losses caused to a certain animation company by Jiang's "unboxing". Following the principles of fairness and good faith, the court determined at its discretion that Jiang should compensate a certain animation company for the liquidated damages of 30000 yuan, and rejected Jiang's counterclaim request, determining that he had no right to claim remuneration after the breach of contract. The verdict of the case has been upheld in the second instance and is now effective. The judge pointed out that virtual anchors are the main entities engaged in online live streaming with virtual images. Virtual anchors can be divided into artificial intelligence driven and real person driven types, and this case is a real person driven virtual anchor. The real actors behind the scenes of virtual anchors, also known as "Zhong Ren", use technologies such as face capture and motion capture to present external virtual images with synchronized expressions and actions with real people, in order to conduct online live streaming and interact with viewers in real-time. Although the "appearance" of virtual anchors is constructed by code, the commercial value and personal rights they carry still need to be treated with caution within the framework of the rule of law. This is the first contract dispute case in the virtual anchor industry caused by actively "opening boxes", which not only has an important impact on both parties, but also provides important reference for legal compliance in the new business model. So, in the current situation where virtual anchors have attracted high attention, how can we avoid virtual anchors being unboxed and better promote industry development? For virtual anchors, when signing contracts with online platform organizations, it is important to be cautious about the terms of the contract and fully understand their rights and obligations. Always keep in mind your responsibilities, protect the personality rights of virtual characters and trade secrets, and avoid legal liability due to momentary negligence. For online platforms, when formulating contracts, it is necessary to ensure that the terms are fair and reasonable, and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of both parties. For the liquidated damages, a "gradient setting" can be adopted, which means that the basic liquidated damages cover the actual losses, and the excess part is dynamically linked to the income level of the "middle person" of the anchor, the remaining period of the contract, etc. It is not possible to simply claim compensation for losses based on all investment costs. Only by enhancing legal awareness and strictly adhering to contractual agreements can the virtual anchor industry develop healthily and stably on the track of the rule of law, bring more high-quality content to the audience, and promote the sustainable development of the digital economy ecosystem. (New Society)