小红书因前员工期权纠纷案件引发关注，该案被视为国内首例穿透VIE架构、认定境外期权属于劳动报酬的标杆判例。[1]2022年6月入职小红书的陈浩年薪约160万元，其中近三分之一以境外主体Xingin International Holding Limited授予的期权形式发放。[1]2023年12月，距离首批期权成熟行权仅剩5个月，小红书以"不胜任工作"为由单方解除其劳动关系。[1]
广州市天河区人民法院于2025年2月判决小红书违法解约，判赔152324元及服务奖金37000元。[1]广州市中级人民法院终审维持一审判决，小红书方面合计赔付约85万元，包括违法解除赔偿金19万余元及期权损失补偿66万余元。[1]该案暴露出小红书在VIE架构信息披露中存在自相矛盾——既在劳动诉讼中声称与境外期权主体无关，又在上市筹划中宣称通过协议100%控制境内运营实体。[1]
陈浩称已有近50名小红书离职员工反馈遭遇"行权前夕被优化"的类似经历。[1]7月22日小红书公开回应称"目前流传的IPO相关信息均不属实"。[1]截至2026年3月，港交所递交上市申请的186家企业中，采取红筹模式申报的仅占14.5%，选择H股直接上市的占82.8%。[1]
Xiaohongshu faces scrutiny following a landmark labor dispute with former employee Chen Hao, whose case has exposed contradictions in how the platform discloses its VIE structure arrangements.[1] Chen Hao joined Xiaohongshu in June 2022 on an annual salary of approximately 1.6 million yuan, with nearly one-third of his compensation issued as equity options through the offshore entity Xingin International Holding Limited.[1] In December 2023, just five months before his first batch of options would have vested, Xiaohongshu terminated Chen Hao's employment on grounds of job incompetence.[1]
The Guangzhou Tianhe District People's Court ruled in February 2025 that Xiaohongshu's termination was unlawful, a decision upheld on appeal by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court.[1] The platform ultimately paid approximately 850,000 yuan in total compensation, including over 190,000 yuan for wrongful termination and 660,000 yuan to compensate for option losses.[1] The case is considered a landmark precedent domestically—the first to pierce the VIE structure and establish that offshore options constitute labor compensation.[1]
The dispute has revealed a critical inconsistency in Xiaohongshu's public positions: the company argued in litigation that it has no connection to the offshore option-issuing entity, yet has simultaneously claimed in IPO preparations that it maintains 100 percent control over its domestic operations through contractual agreements.[1] Chen Hao has reported that approximately 50 other former employees have experienced similar circumstances—termination shortly before options were set to vest.[1] In July, Xiaohongshu stated that "all circulating IPO-related information is untrue,"[1] yet the case raises questions about governance practices as the platform continues its potential public listing process.
