Tencent vs. ByteDance: The High‑Stakes Court Battle Over Honor of Kings Live‑Streaming Rights
In recent months, a phrase that has been circulating on Chinese social media—“王者开庭,” loosely rendered as “the King’s court is in session”—has taken on a concrete meaning in the world of tech and entertainment law. The term refers not to a medieval monarch summoning his nobles, but to a series of high‑profile court battles over the wildly popular mobile game Honor of Kings (王者荣耀), developed by internet giant Tencent. At the centre of the dispute is Tencent’s effort to protect its intellectual property against what it alleges is unauthorized use by rival platform ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok’s Chinese counterpart Douyin and the video‑sharing service Xigua Video.
12 August 2025
Tencent, officially Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd., owns the copyright to Honor of Kings, a game that has become a cultural staple in China since its launch in 2015. With more than 100 million daily active users, the title generates billions of yuan in revenue not only from in‑app purchases but also from a vibrant ecosystem of live‑streamed gameplay. Streamers on platforms such as Douyin and Xigua Video have turned the game into a spectator sport, attracting advertising dollars and sponsorship deals. Tencent’s business model, however, includes licensing its live‑streaming rights to third parties, a revenue stream the company says it must safeguard.
The legal clash began in January 2019, when Tencent filed a lawsuit against ByteDance’s subsidiary Beijing Micro Vision Technology Co., Ltd., accusing it of facilitating unlicensed streams of Honor of Kings on Xigua Video. According to the complaint, ByteDance had actively recruited and organized streamers to broadcast the game without obtaining Tencent’s permission, thereby infringing on the developer’s copyrighted content and violating unfair competition statutes. Tencent presented copyright registration certificates and other documentation to demonstrate its exclusive rights to the game’s audiovisual elements and to the authorization of live broadcasts.
ByteDance’s defense has revolved around a two‑pronged argument. First, the company contends that the streams in question consist of dynamic video generated by players in real time, and therefore the copyright resides with the individual gamers rather than with Tencent. Second, ByteDance argues that its platforms merely provide a neutral venue for user‑generated content, and that it bears no responsibility for the actions of independent streamers. The defense has also raised the broader issue of whether Chinese copyright law should extend to the live‑streaming of gameplay, a matter that, until now, has lacked clear judicial precedent.
The cases have been heard in several specialized courts, including the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. Judges in these venues have been tasked with interpreting how existing copyright statutes apply to the fast‑evolving digital entertainment landscape. While a final verdict is still pending, the proceedings have already sparked a wave of commentary within China’s tech and legal communities. Experts note that a ruling in Tencent’s favor could set a powerful precedent, compelling all video‑sharing platforms to adopt stricter licensing arrangements for game‑related content. Conversely, a decision that favors ByteDance could reinforce the principle that user‑generated live streams are exempt from direct copyright claims, preserving the open nature of China’s burgeoning live‑streaming culture.
The “王者开庭” saga is not the only courtroom drama involving Honor of Kings. Parallel legal actions have emerged over the game’s impact on minors, with prosecutors examining whether Tencent has complied with regulations that limit underage play. In a separate incident in May 2020, an individual named Wang faced charges for renting out his Honor of Kings account for a fee, highlighting the broader ecosystem of secondary markets that have sprung up around the game.
These disputes underscore how a single piece of entertainment software can become a flashpoint for competing interests: the pursuit of profit, the protection of creative rights, and the regulation of digital behaviour. For Tencent, the outcome of the litigation could determine how much control it retains over one of its crown jewels. For ByteDance, the stakes revolve around preserving the free‑flow of user content that fuels its platforms’ growth. And for the millions of Chinese gamers who tune in to watch their favorite heroes clash in virtual arenas, the result will shape how they experience the game beyond the screen.
As the two tech titans continue to argue their cases, the phrase “王者开庭” has taken on a life of its own—a shorthand for a modern battle over who truly holds the court in China’s digital kingdom. The world will be watching, because the verdict could echo far beyond a single game, influencing the future of live‑streaming, copyright enforcement, and the balance of power between China’s most powerful internet companies.
