According to CCTV’s “Today’s说法” (Today’s说法 is a popular Chinese legal program that discusses real-life legal cases)， a peculiar incident recently unfolded in a KTV establishment. As living standards rise， many young people increasingly frequent KTVs for leisure. On December 14th of last year， a young woman， referred to as Xiao Mei， visited a KTV with friends and engaged in live streaming while enjoying her time.
The following day， Xiao Mei discovered that photos taken with her phone’s front-facing camera were marred by multiple purple spots. Upon checking her photo gallery， she recalled that pictures taken on December 13th， the day before her KTV visit， were clear and free from any such blemishes. However， photos from December 15th， the day after her KTV outing， were significantly affected.
Suspecting the KTV’s laser lights， Xiao Mei contacted the establishment’s manager， asserting， “Your KTV’s laser lights have damaged my phone’s camera!” Faced with a disagreement， Xiao Mei subsequently filed a lawsuit against the KTV.
During the court proceedings， both sides presented their respective arguments. The company operating the KTV maintained its innocence， asserting that its laser lights were certified and that prominent notices were displayed at the KTV entrance and checkout counter. Furthermore， they argued that Xiao Mei failed to provide definitive proof that her phone was damaged within their KTV.
However， the court found that Xiao Mei’s evidence， which included consumption records， a comparative analysis of photos taken before and after the incident， and WeChat chat logs with the manager， formed a coherent chain of evidence. This collectively indicated a high probability that her phone was indeed damaged at the KTV.
Regarding the adequacy of warnings， the court’s on-site inspection revealed several oversights. The warning in the KTV lobby， “Please do not point your mobile phone at others or light sources when filming，” was found to be integrated with a “review for popcorn” advertisement， resulting in small and easily overlooked font. In-room screens displayed relevant scrolling prompts with low frequency， and the warning signs at the checkout counter were discreetly placed， failing to adequately capture consumer attention.
Ultimately， the court adjudicated based on the shared fault of both parties. The operating company was deemed 70% responsible for failing to provide sufficient warnings， despite knowing that laser lights could potentially damage cameras. Xiao Mei was assigned 30% of the responsibility for not exercising due caution， particularly given her prolonged live streaming activity in the KTV environment.
Considering the official repair price of 1198 yuan as stated by the phone’s manufacturer， the KTV company was ordered to pay 838.6 yuan in compensation.
