After police detained two individuals for urinating in a hotpot at a Haidilao restaurant in Shanghai — an act that sparked widespread public discussion — a local court on Friday handed down its first-instance verdict, ordering the culprits and their parents to pay 2.2 million yuan ($300,000) in compensation, according to a report on People’s Daily app.

The report said that on Friday, the Huangpu District People’s Court of Shanghai delivered its first-instance ruling in the case involving disputes over reputation rights and property damage between the plaintiffs — two catering companies from Southwest China’s Sichuan province and Shanghai — and the two 17-year-old defendants, Tang and Wu, along with their parents.

The court ordered Tang and Wu, together with their parents, to issue public apologies to the two catering companies in designated newspapers while protecting the privacy of the minors. In addition, they were ordered to pay 130,000 yuan to the Shanghai company for tableware losses and cleaning expenses, and 2 million yuan to both companies for operational and reputational damages, as well as 70,000 yuan in legal costs — bringing the total compensation to 2.2 million yuan. Where Tang and Wu have personal assets, compensation should be paid from their own property; any shortfall is to be covered by their parents, said the report.

Previously, after police detained two individuals, Haidilao, a popular hotpot chain, issued a statement, announcing that for all 4,109 customer orders placed during dine-in services at the affected store over the 13 days under investigation, it fully refunded the meal costs from that day and provided additional cash compensation equivalent to 10 times the order amount.

After reviewing the case, the Huangpu District People’s Court found that Tang and Wu had intentionally urinated into the hotpot. Even when fully aware of the potential online dissemination effects and negative social impacts that could arise from the release of the video, they still actively pursued or allowed the corresponding video to be publicly disseminated. The court held that both were subjectively at fault and had jointly infringed upon property rights as well as reputation through acts of insult, the report said.

The court noted that the misconduct polluted tableware and the dining environment in the private room, causing strong discomfort among the public. The restaurant’s response, including replacing all tableware in the store and conducting a full-scale cleaning and disinfection, was deemed reasonable and not excessive, with related expenses classified as property damage.

The court also ruled that Haidilao’s decision to issue full refunds to all dine-in customers from the time of the incident until the completion of the restaurant’s cleaning and replacement of tableware was both reasonable compensation for consumers and a way to remedy its damaged reputation, thus constituting recoverable losses.

However, the additional compensation of ten times the meal price lacked a direct legal causal link to the misconduct and was considered a voluntary business decision by the company, which the court could not support. The court further acknowledged that the negative impact of the misconduct was ongoing, causing a short-term decline in business revenue, which also qualified as a reasonable loss, according to the report.

Although Tang and Wu are minors with limited civil capacity, the court found that they had sufficient awareness of the illegality of their actions and the consequences, as well as the meaning of making a public apology. Holding them responsible for issuing an apology did not exceed their capacity and would encourage genuine reflection. Both agreed to make an apology.

The court also determined that Tang and Wu’s parents had failed to fulfill their duty of guardianship, leading to the minors’ misconduct. Therefore, all six defendants were held jointly responsible for issuing public apologies, while financial compensation for economic losses was to be borne by the parents.