With the continuous development of technology, emerging media such as WeChat have become platforms for people to exchange information and express emotions, and may also record certain legally significant facts. Whether WeChat records can be accepted as evidence by the people's court has become a new hotspot in judicial practice.

1、 Evidence classification of WeChat records

Article 63 of China's Civil Procedure Law specifies that electronic data is a legal type of evidence, while Article 116 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China further clarifies:

Audiovisual materials include audio and visual materials, while electronic data refers to information formed or stored in electronic media through email, electronic data exchange, online chat records, blogs, microblogs, mobile text messages, electronic signatures, domain names, etc.

The communication records of WeChat and the text and pictures in the circle of friends prove the facts to be verified through their recorded content, which seems to have the characteristics of documentary evidence, while voice recordings have the characteristics of audio-visual materials. But the reason why the law regards it as an independent evidence is that WeChat also has the obstacle of the same subject being recognized, and has unique recognition rules.

2、 The issue of evidence correlation

（1） Reasons for occurrence

WeChat records are accepted as evidence and should have objectivity, legality, and relevance. However, in terms of relevance, they face obstacles in determining the identity between WeChat subjects and real subjects. As is well known, WeChat has not been registered with real names for a long time, and even users can log in using other methods such as QQ accounts without registering for WeChat. The registration method for QQ is even simpler. Therefore, from the perspective of WeChat recipients, relying solely on the displayed WeChat platform information lacks the true identity information of the WeChat subject, as well as other information such as phone numbers.

（2） Notarized WeChat records

Article 77 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" stipulates that notarized documentary evidence has greater probative value than other documentary evidence and witness testimony. However, on the one hand, WeChat records are not documentary evidence, and on the other hand, the premise of their probative value is that they possess the characteristics of evidence. WeChat records that have been notarized but cannot prove the identity of the subject cannot be accepted as evidence.

例如，在 For example, in the (2016) Supreme Court ruling No. 1399, the Supreme Court held that:

The chat records between nicknames cannot prove that they were used by the corresponding parties at that time. Even if notarized to prove their objectivity, they do not have relevance and cannot be accepted as evidence.

（3） Methods for proving identity

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to prove that the WeChat account was used by the corresponding party at that time, but there are also several methods that can be tried:

Firstly, integrate various information from the WeChat platform

• Currently, WeChat users usually leave traces in their Moments. If they update records with their private information such as photos and new phone numbers during the transaction period
• Or by having voice chat while communicating with the trading party in text, the identity of the subject can be basically determined

Secondly, verify the public information on the WeChat platform

• When filing a lawsuit, hand it over to the court and use service to confirm the authenticity of the information and determine its identity

Thirdly, the Identity between WeChat Records and Real Behavior

• In simple transactions, the contract is concluded through WeChat, but payment is made through bank transfer, and the bank account must have real name registration to determine the WeChat subject
• In complex transactions, if divided into multiple steps, each previous step corresponds to a WeChat record, and the later steps can also be considered as implemented by the same entity

例如，在 For example, in Judgment No. 00945 of 2014, 11 contracts were signed through the same social media account, and the first 10 contracts were actually fulfilled. The Changsha Intermediate People's Court held that:

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be determined that the parties who signed the 11th contract have identity.

3、 The evidential power of WeChat records

On the premise that WeChat records can be accepted as evidence, there is also a problem of comparing their probative value with other evidence. The Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation do not specify the probative value of electronic data.

However, the author believes that WeChat records have similarities with ordinary documentary evidence and audio-visual materials, except for the issue of subject identity. Their evidential power is comparable to that of comparable documentary evidence and audio-visual materials. Article 11 of the Contract Law stipulates that the formation of a contract through electronic communication is also a form of written form.

For example, in the case of Civil Lending Dispute (2017) Supreme People's Court Civil Application No. 113:

Electronic data has the same legal effect as paper promissory notes, and its agreement on loan amount, term, and interest has been recognized by the Supreme Court.