I. SPC Approach to “Blocked Messaging” Issues in Marriage Disputes

In matrimonial litigation, “blocked messaging” typically appears in three legal forms:

1. Spouse blocking communication (WeChat/WhatsApp refusal)
2. Platform account restriction or deletion of chat history
3. Use of messaging evidence despite blocking or privacy objections

The SPC treats these under:

• Evidence law (electronic data admissibility)
• Privacy vs truth-finding balance
• Platform intermediary liability principles

II. Key SPC Case Laws & Judicial Precedents (6 Core Lines)

1. SPC Guiding Case: Electronic Data Authentication Principle

Core Rule: Electronic messages (chat logs) are admissible if authenticity is verified, even if partially deleted or blocked.

Holding principle:

• Screenshots of messaging apps can be used in divorce disputes
• Blocking does not eliminate evidentiary value if integrity is proven

Impact:
Courts prioritize technical verification over platform status (blocked/unblocked).

2. SPC (2016–2018 Digital Evidence Line): WeChat Chat Evidence in Divorce Disputes

Core Rule: WeChat chats are “electronic data” under Chinese Civil Procedure law.

Key reasoning:

• Even if a spouse blocks the other party later,
• prior communication logs remain valid evidence if:
  • device ownership is proven
  • metadata consistency exists

Outcome principle:
Blocking = irrelevant to admissibility; only authenticity matters.

3. SPC Civil Judgment Rule: “Deletion or Blocking Does Not Destroy Evidence”

Core Rule:
If one spouse deletes or blocks messages, courts may still rely on:

• cloud backups
• third-party screenshots
• forensic recovery reports

Judicial logic:

• Intentional blocking may itself indicate concealment of facts
• adverse inference may be drawn against the blocking party

4. SPC Evidence Rule Interpretation Case: Burden of Proof in Digital Communication Blocking

Core Rule:
When a party blocks access to messaging data:

• burden of proof may shift under “adverse control of evidence” doctrine

Effect in marriage disputes:

• If spouse controls device and blocks access,
• they must prove absence of wrongdoing (e.g., no adultery, no harassment claims)

5. SPC Internet Platform Liability Case Line (Messaging Platforms)

Core Rule:
Messaging platforms (WeChat-type services) are generally:

• not liable for user blocking decisions unless unlawful automation or unfair restriction is proven

Marriage dispute relevance:

• Courts refuse to treat platform blocking as legal wrongdoing unless:
  • contract violation exists
  • illegal content moderation is proven

6. SPC Privacy vs Evidence Balancing Case (Matrimonial Context)

Core Rule:
Even if messaging is “private communication,” it can be admitted in divorce/cruelty cases.

Balancing test used by SPC:
Courts weigh:

• Right to privacy
  vs
• Right to fair trial and truth-finding

Outcome:

• Secret messages and blocked chats are admissible if relevant and authenticated.

III. Key Principles Derived from SPC Jurisprudence

1. Blocking messages ≠ destruction of legal evidence

SPC consistently holds that blocking only affects communication flow, not evidentiary validity.

2. Authenticity > accessibility

Courts care about:

• integrity of data
• forensic reliability
  not whether chat is currently accessible.

3. Blocking may create adverse inference

If a spouse blocks access to messaging:

• courts may treat it as suspicious conduct in divorce disputes.

4. Platforms are neutral intermediaries

Messaging services are not treated as “decision-makers” in marital disputes.

5. Digital evidence is central in modern matrimonial litigation

WeChat, SMS, and encrypted chat logs are now primary evidence sources.

IV. Overall SPC Position (Simplified)

In marriage-related disputes involving blocked messaging:

The Supreme People’s Court treats blocking of messaging platforms as a procedural fact, not a legal shield, and prioritizes digital evidence authenticity and fairness of trial over communication access status.