A contract dispute has emerged between Nanjing Qimou Media and recent graduate Cui Mouxi, with the court issuing a ruling on the case. Qimou Media, operating as an MCN agency, signed a "Live Streamer Talent Cooperation Agreement" with Cui Mouxi in June 2024, stipulating that the company would provide her with brokerage services.

Under the agreement, Cui Mouxi was required to adhere to the company's regulations regarding live stream content, duration, and short video updates: no less than 6 hours daily, no fewer than 25 effective live streaming days per month, and a minimum of 20 short video updates monthly each achieving over 100 views. In return, the company would pay a guaranteed base salary of 6,000 yuan per month and share her live streaming revenue.

During the term of the agreement, Cui Mouxi conducted live streaming activities on a platform using her personal ID "Xin Mouxi," while Qimou Media provided her with accommodation and meals. From June to November 2024, Cui Mouxi streamed for approximately 6 hours daily, earning platform revenues of 2,399.98 yuan in June, 4,197.9 yuan in July, 6,186.42 yuan in August, 6,904.79 yuan in September, 5,526.59 yuan in October, and 3,656.22 yuan in November.

Qimou Media additionally paid Cui the guaranteed salary shortfall: 3,410.1 yuan for June and 1,968.9 yuan for July. However, after Cui Mouxi requested to terminate the contract in November of the same year, Qimou Media filed a lawsuit against her, demanding the return of the guaranteed salary, accommodation and meal expenses, live streaming costs, and payment of a penalty exceeding 180,000 yuan.

Upon review, the court determined that although the parties signed a document titled a "cooperation agreement," Cui Mouxi's live stream content, duration, and work discipline were strictly managed by the company, and her income structure also reflected economic dependency, aligning with the substantive characteristics of an employment relationship.

The court emphasized that in new forms of employment, the legal relationship should be determined based on the actual performance of duties, and employer responsibilities cannot be circumvented under the guise of a "cooperation" format. Since this case had not undergone the mandatory preliminary labor arbitration procedure, the court ultimately ruled to dismiss all claims made by the MCN agency.