GamePea Exclusive — Reproduction Prohibited
In August 2025, a case that captivated China's gaming community unfolded: Sun Qianhe, a lawyer from Qingdao, Shandong, and a player of Honor of Kings, filed a lawsuit against Tencent demanding the company disclose the detailed mechanics of the game's matchmaking system. Sun argued that the algorithm manipulates player win rates to hover around 50%, citing Article 8 of China's Consumer Rights Protection Law to demand transparency. She also repeatedly linked the matchmaking system to algorithmic opacity in social media posts and media interviews, claiming that controlling win rates could lead to gaming addiction.
The case drew intense scrutiny from players and industry insiders alike, primarily because matchmaking algorithms and in-game rules are considered core trade secrets in the gaming industry. The central legal question: Do existing laws support forcing game companies to reveal such proprietary information? The first-instance verdict made it clear: the court did not uphold Sun's demands.
The judgment stated: 'The Consumer Rights Protection Law enumerates the scope of consumers' right to know, and game matchmaking algorithms do not fall within that scope. The plaintiff's request for Tencent to further disclose the mechanisms and details of the player matchmaking algorithm in Honor of Kings exceeds the reasonable boundaries of the consumer's right to know.' The court also noted that full disclosure could lead to abuse: malicious players could exploit system vulnerabilities to manipulate match outcomes, undermining fairness and ultimately driving away players. Therefore, publicizing matchmaking algorithms would not benefit the healthy development of the gaming industry.
However, the first-instance ruling may not be the end. After the verdict, Sun selectively shared parts of the judgment in videos and livestreams, emphasizing her disagreement while hesitating to appeal. 'I need to read the judgment carefully first, then think about it,' she said, showing a lack of confidence.
With the first trial concluded, the case has left a trail of controversy, prompting players, game companies, and regulators to reflect on the boundaries between player rights protection and industry trade secrets.
A Lawsuit That Should Never Have Been Filed
In GamePea's view, Sun's loss in the first trial made one thing clear: this case never had a legal basis for victory from the start. Under current regulatory measures in China's gaming industry, companies already disclose certain information, such as item drop rates, and strictly enforce未成年人 protection and anti-addiction measures. However, the first-instance ruling shows that the legal system still protects game developers' legitimate rights, including unique product designs and technical secrets like competitive game matchmaking algorithms.
Zhu Wei, an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law and a member of the China Consumers Association expert committee, noted: 'The right to know is an important foundation for other consumer rights, but not all service provider content needs to be disclosed. Matchmaking mechanisms fall under trade secrets. If trade secrets are not protected, discussing the right to know is meaningless.' Zhang Qi, a senior partner at Beijing Yingke (Shanghai) Law Firm, added: 'The matchmaking mechanism is a core competitive advantage for Honor of Kings and meets the criteria for trade secrets. Unlike apps like Weibo or Douyin, which have public opinion or social mobilization attributes, game matchmaking algorithms are legally protected as trade secrets.'
Despite lacking legal grounds, Sun insisted on suing. Before the trial, she told media she was a humanities graduate who 'doesn't understand algorithms,' but pursued the case to 'promote algorithmic transparency.' The trial itself lacked the dramatic courtroom battles many expected. To the disappointment of GamePea and legal professionals, the plaintiff struggled to answer the judge's specific questions and failed to cite clear legal provisions for many of her demands. For instance, when the judge asked whether her request for Tencent to disclose the matchmaking mechanism was based on legal provisions or a rights claim, Sun said both. But when pressed on 'which specific legal provisions,' she couldn't provide matching statutes and vaguely invoked the 'spirit' of the law.
Sun also conflated game matchmaking mechanisms with algorithms. While similar, they differ. According to national definitions, internet information service algorithms primarily refer to those used for content generation, personalized recommendations, etc., which are regulated due to public interest. Games, however, are personal entertainment experiences set in fictional worlds, and matchmaking mechanisms are not about information推送. Applying regulatory requirements for internet information service algorithms to game matchmaking disclosure is clearly overreaching.
Xu Xiaoben, a professor at the Intellectual Property School of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, noted: 'Online games are part of the digital entertainment industry, serving cultural leisure and entertainment. They are inherently private and recreational, usually unrelated to public interest. User matchmaking mechanisms in online games neither involve user decision-making nor public interest, so they should not be subject to excessive administrative intervention.'
After the verdict, Sun contradicted herself in a livestream, backtracking to claim her true goal was fairness: 'Disclosing the matchmaking mechanism is a legal issue; what affects players is whether it's fair. As a legal professional and a player, I want the mechanism to be fair, so I used the means I'm good at to push for it.' She defined fairness as 'not about me winning, but about having quality matches.' Yet, she proudly revealed her own high rank: 'Last season, I reached 50 stars and nearly 1900 in peak mode, placing in the top 10% nationally.' Such a high rank hardly aligns with the image of a victim of an unfair matchmaking system.
GamePea was struck by how the case unfolded like a reality show, with extensive media coverage and public attention. Sun, despite lacking legal grounds, leveraged public anxiety about algorithms to pressure Honor of Kings into self-justification, generating massive traffic. The case's high visibility without legal basis suggests emotional-driven motives.
As a professional lawyer claiming to represent player interests, Sun's courtroom performance disappointed many. She not only lacked solid legal arguments but also made statements like 'For adult players, anti-addiction measures like forced logouts are not enough'—hardly the words of a lawyer truly representing players.
In her livestream, Sun repeatedly read the court's consoling remarks to the losing party, stubbornly interpreting them as proof that the court acknowledged unfairness. She even pinned those remarks in the comments of her Bilibili video, rather than the final verdict. While the gaming industry and professionals focused on the ruling's protection of corporate rights, Sun selectively emphasized parts of the judgment, citing the '15th Five-Year Plan' on guiding the healthy development of online literature, games, and audiovisual content—a clear diversion and sign of insufficient professionalism.
Ultimately, the case generated media coverage and Sun's personal exposure, but also intensified player-developer antagonism and emotional outbursts. The only real output was traffic. So, who was the true winner?
Who Wins, Who Loses?
On the surface, Tencent's Honor of Kings won the lawsuit, and Sun lost. But in reality, Sun emerged as the beneficiary, while Honor of Kings became the loser—a stark contrast to the verdict. Sun's personal losses were limited to litigation costs and potential legal fees. But for Honor of Kings, the case disrupted its normally manageable relationship with players, fueling opposition that could hinder its long-term iterative improvement process.
Service-oriented GaaS games rely on a feedback loop: players identify issues, report them, developers digest feedback, optimize, and satisfy players. This cycle has kept Honor of Kings thriving for a decade. Sun's lawsuit essentially denied this positive cycle, portraying developers as deliberately scheming against players—a misleading and factually inaccurate narrative, in GamePea's view.
The case pitted players against developers, triggering a wave of one-sided mockery and even失控 comments against Honor of Kings. Should the game bear such undue pressure? Player dissatisfaction with matchmaking is a constant challenge Honor of Kings has faced for ten years. But competitive games, like sports, inherently involve winners and losers. Even PvE single-player games can see players defeated by NPCs—this is part of the appeal. If players can't handle losing, perhaps only simulation or idle games without competitive elements suit their desire for constant victory.
Sun's claim that the matchmaking mechanism manipulates win rates to 50% is false. For many players, skill determines win rate. Tencent's representative presented random player data in court: Player A had a 76.1% win rate over 752 matches; Player B, 71% over 2,398 matches; Player C, 81.6% over 472 matches. The 50% figure clearly doesn't apply to these higher-skilled players.
Fairness has always been key to the longevity of competitive games. If matchmaking mechanisms reduced player experience by controlling win rates, it would harm the game's reputation and long-term value—contrary to the company's commercial interests. Ironically, both developers and players seeking fair competition were turned against each other by this unnecessary lawsuit.
In GamePea's observation, Honor of Kings, despite winning the case, suffered the most due to emotional manipulation, becoming the biggest loser. Media coverage, while sometimes neutral, mostly fueled emotional output, trapping the game in a 'cyberbullying' vortex.
Why is Sun the winner? During the lawsuit, she gained significant attention and traffic. After the trial, she started livestreaming on Douyin, gaining 120,000 followers in one day, transforming from an obscure lawyer into a figure watched by both gaming and legal circles. Even more absurdly, after losing, she openly 'solicited clients' in her livestream, boasting about her successes in other cases like game account bans, promoting her expertise in virtual assets and beyond.
But GamePea believes Sun could have taken a more rigorous approach, focusing on professionalism rather than creating public pressure on the court. The first-instance loss at least indicates some issues.
Disclosing Matchmaking Details: A 'Black Market Manual' That Harms Players
As a gaming industry media outlet, GamePea is more concerned with the case's professional implications. The first-instance ruling favored game developers, but how to communicate this to all game companies and regulators is crucial. Clearly defining the boundaries of game companies' rights and responsibilities—what should be protected—is key.
Protecting matchmaking details isn't just about protecting companies and the industry; it's about protecting players. Full disclosure could become a manual for cheating, destroying fair competition and harming legitimate players. Moreover, disclosure would turn a dynamic optimization tool into a rigid promise to players, making every future adjustment subject to player scrutiny or even lawsuits, ultimately harming all players.
From an industry perspective, this case also reminds game companies to build better relationships with players, which determines long-term operation and positive social value. Although Sun loudly demanded Honor of Kings reveal its matchmaking mechanism, the company had already been optimizing and disclosing it since 2018, as seen in its 'Di Renjie Q&A: Matchmaking Algorithm Full Analysis.' In August 2025, Honor of Kings even pioneered inviting players to co-create matchmaking mechanisms. Sun herself admitted in a livestream that the matchmaking had improved: 'After the trial last year, the developers said they would adjust the mechanism. For example, we can now see the ranks of all five players in a match—that's a change since the trial.' This shows the mechanism has been iterating based on player feedback.
Although this case is over, GamePea calls for a return to normal feedback and optimization cycles between players and developers. This is a new challenge for the entire gaming industry: how to communicate matchmaking principles transparently and effectively while protecting trade secrets, and reduce poor experiences based on player feedback—something every top-tier game must achieve.
In the intellectual property field, even stricter jurisdictions like the US, Japan, and Europe haven't required game companies to disclose technical secrets. GamePea believes China shouldn't lead this trend either. Once the 'Pandora's box' is opened, it won't just affect gaming but all industries involving public welfare. Demanding companies reveal patent formulas and production processes is unacceptable even in food or medicine sectors—games shouldn't be an exception just because they're games.
This case also highlights a new trend in player demands: service quality and optimization. Players increasingly expect game companies to improve service and respond quickly to user needs. For any company pursuing excellence, continuous service improvement is an endless journey. But the prerequisite is a harmonious, mutually understanding environment between users and companies.
Going forward, rather than lawsuits,良性互动 between players and products—players making rational demands, developers delivering satisfying optimizations—will drive industry progress and improve service capabilities. That's the outcome players and media truly want to see.
Tags: Honor of Kings