Invisible Overtime Becomes a Fatal Weakness: Family of 32-Year-Old Programmer Who Died Suddenly Faces "No Legal Recourse" Dilemma Recently, the case of Gao Guanghui, a 32-year-old software department manager at Guangzhou Shiyuan Co., Ltd. (CVTE), who died suddenly at home, has drawn ongoing public attention. In addition to the shocking detail that he was still urged to complete work tasks eight hours after his death, his family faces the dilemma of "difficulty in hiring a lawyer" during the initial stage of seeking justice, which once again exposes the social wound of the programmer community's struggle for rights while working from home. Lack of Evidence: Background Data Becomes "Confidential" and Lawyers Are Reluctant to Take Cases. According to Gao Guanghui's wife, Ms. Yang, she encountered multiple obstacles while seeking legal assistance. Several lawyers, after understanding the case, stated that the chances of winning such cases are "extremely low" and advised against filing a lawsuit. The core difficulty lies in proving the "facts of work": 1. Data Isolation Since Gao Guanghui fell ill at home on a Saturday, his computer operation records, background login duration, and internal communication permissions are all controlled by the company. The family had requested to access the background data to prove he was working at the time of his illness, but the company refused to provide it, citing "business confidentiality." 2. Temporal and Spatial Ambiguity The current "Work Injury Insurance Regulations" have a relatively traditional approach to determining "working hours and working locations." Lawyers generally believe that without the company's active cooperation, equating "working from home" with "work-related injury" presents a significant legal classification gap. 3. Imbalanced Game In addition to the difficulty of gathering evidence, lawyers' concerns also stem from the unequal resources of both parties. Faced with the mature and large legal system of a publicly listed company, ordinary law firms are often reluctant to invest high costs to engage in a case that has a broken chain of evidence and remains controversial in social classification. 4. High Compensation Trap Previous reports indicated that the company had proposed a compensation plan of 390,000 yuan, but it came with a harsh confidentiality agreement that included a 500,000 yuan penalty for breach. Such agreements not only target the family but often also put legal professionals assisting in the rights protection at risk of professional hazards and legal entanglements. The "China Youth Daily" commentary channel "Zhongqing Commentary" published an article titled "It’s Time to Set Boundaries for 'Working Anytime, Anywhere'" on January 23, 2026. The article calls for: the "right to rest" should not be a mere formality. Experts urge legislative bodies or judicial interpretations to clarify that in the digital age, if "invisible overtime" directly leads to health collapse, it should be broadly recognized in accordance with the "work-related reasons" in the "Work Injury Insurance Regulations." Gao Guanghui's experience is not an isolated case; it reflects the challenges posed to traditional labor laws by the prevalence of remote work and instant messaging tools, where being "on call 24/7" is the norm. Public opinion generally believes that if dying in front of a computer cannot be recognized as a work-related injury due to the lack of clock-in records, and if companies can cover up work records under the guise of "business confidentiality," then workers' life safety will completely lose its last line of defense. Currently, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Huangpu District, Guangzhou, has intervened in the investigation. Legal professionals point out that whether this case can break the ice depends on whether the investigative department can force the company to provide background data, restoring the "work closure" of this programmer's last moments of life.