The legal knockout of “Tikboxing”

TikTok has taken the world by storm since 2016, enabling users to create, post, view and share short-form videos. Recently, however, the application has fallen foul of the courts for some of the interactions it facilitates. Rupert Candy, Michaela Holl and Julian Govender told Africa Legal about the fallout.

Many users across the globe, including in South Africa, have gained massive followings on TikTok, and these “TikTok influencers” often compete with one another in TikTok live battles where two users stream live simultaneously and encourage their viewers to donate. The user with the most donations wins the battle. A couple of entrepreneurs took the TikTok battles a little too literally, giving rise to the company Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd.

“The company was established for the purpose of promoting and hosting boxing matches between well-known TikTok influencers,” explained Michaela Höll, an associate at Rupert Candy Attorneys Incorporated (RCA Inc.). “The idea came about as a result of the verbal altercations and feuds that took place on the TikTok platform between these influencers. Surprisingly, these unregulated boxing matches only came to the attention of the courts as a result of a contractual dispute between the directors of the company.”

“In the case of Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd and Others v du Toit and Others (B1342/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2025, the applicants approached the court for an order inter alia declaring the first respondent a delinquent director of the first applicant, Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd and ordering that the payment of ticket sales be paid to Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd,” said Julian Govender, a candidate attorney at RCA Inc. . “However, before the court could determine who was entitled to the payments, the court had to determine whether the contract itself was lawful.”

The question to be determined by the court was whether consent is a justification for the crime of assault, culpable homicide and, potentially, murder as a result of these “tikboxing” matches.

“The court held that lawful consent could be granted within the parameters of a lawful sport, such as boxing, because it is regulated by the South African Boxing Act 11 of 2001 as well as the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act 2 of 2010,” explained Rupert Candy, director at RCA Inc. “For instance, the South African Boxing Act 11 of 2001 requires that a person may not hold any tournament unless a licence has been issued to him/her by Boxing SA. These Acts and Regulations also require compulsory medical examinations to ensure that competitors are of a similar weight, sex and ability, as well as ensure that the competitors are healthy and able to compete.”

“In this case, the court firstly decided that a person cannot consent to assault outside of the ambit of a lawful sport, based on the decisions in Austin v Morrall & Others (1905) 22 SC 67, Rex v Motomana 1938 EDL 128, Rex v Manuele Sile 1945 WLD 134 and The State v Sikunyana and Others 1961 (3) SA 549 (E),” Höll added. “Secondly, the court considered the judge’s notes in Austin v Morrall & Others (1905) 22 SC 67 which stated that ‘a friendly contest in boxing, not calculated to produce injury to either party, would not be illegal’. In this regard, the court was of the view that no boxing contest can be regarded as a friendly contest which is not calculated to produce injury to either party.”

“Public policy was another factor considered by the court in determining the lawfulness of these unregulated bouts,” Candy shared. “According to the court, public policy demands the criminalisation of these acts, as well as any association, participation and agreements related thereto.”

“The court decided that the boxing matches arranged by Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd are unlawful,” Candy added. “Consequently, the court dismissed the contractual claim and referred the order to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission as well as the National Prosecuting Authority to consider whether the purpose of the company is unlawful and whether crimes have been committed by any of the parties mentioned in this matter.”

“TikTok influencers are advised to keep their feuds online to avoid potential legal implications and physical risks associated with bringing it into the ring,” Candy concluded. “However, TikTok users should also be warned of the potential legal implications of making defamatory statements about one another on the public platform.”



To join Africa Legal's mailing list please click here