Skip to content
DCC · DATA COMPLIANCE CHINA China data law, for overseas counsel.
§ LAW · DATA PROPERTY RIGHTS REGISTRATION WORK GUIDE (TRIAL)

Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide (Trial).

数据产权登记工作指引(试行)

Promulgated by: National Data Administration (NDA), Comprehensive Department. Document No.: Guo Shu Zong Zheng Ce [2026] No. 35 (国数综政策〔2026〕35号). Issued: July 1, 2026. Status: Trial guide in force / for reference implementation.


DCC translation. Translated from the final Trial Work Guide issued by the NDA Comprehensive Department on July 1, 2026, and cross-checked against the April 2026 public-consultation draft. Translated against DCC’s bilingual glossary for terminology consistency, including the data-property-rights vocabulary established by the Data 20 Articles policy (Right to Hold Data, Right to Use Data, Right to Operate Data).

What Changed From the Consultation Draft

The final Trial Guide keeps the consultation draft’s six-chapter, 42-article architecture, but it is not a pure clean-up. The changes move in four directions: more explicit security gating, stronger supervision of registration institutions, more cautious treatment of public data, and tighter mechanics around evidence preservation and certificate validity.

Article 1 — purpose and legal basis. The final text adds the goals of reducing data-circulation transaction costs and building an “open, shared and secure” national integrated data market. It also expressly anchors the Guide in the Data 20 Articles policy and adds PIPL and CSL to the legal-basis list.

Article 2 — scope. The final text adds “except as otherwise provided by laws and regulations” and extends the registrable subject matter from data resources and data products to “data products and services.”

Article 3 — definitions. The final text adds a definition of derived data: data formed through professional processing, modelling, analysis, key-information extraction and similar work that substantially changes content, form or structure and significantly increases value while protecting lawful rights and interests.

Article 4 — registration principles. The final text adds “security and order” as a principle and expressly prohibits registration activity that violates law, harms national security or the public interest, or infringes others’ lawful rights and interests.

Articles 5-6 — administration architecture. The final text removes the draft’s reference to “piloting and improving” registration-institution supervision rules and detailed registration rules. It instead frames the national data administration authority as building and managing the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System. Provincial authorities now have clearer daily-management and cross-regional coordination responsibilities.

Article 7 — registration-institution qualifications. The final text narrows the eligible entity type to enterprise and public-institution legal persons, adds funding-support requirements for public-institution legal persons, broadens the experience requirement from data-circulation service to data-registration or data-circulation related service, adds a registration-reviewer management system, and changes the professional-team standard from “professional qualifications” to “professional capabilities.”

Articles 8-11 — institution selection and operation. The final text consistently uses the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System rather than the Service Platform. It also adds periodic disclosure of business handling and full-time review-team construction, adds explicit commercial-secret protection, replaces the draft’s ban on profit-making data-provision activities with a broader ban on using registration convenience for improper benefit, and adds risk-disposal language to annual evaluation.

Article 12 — institution changes. The draft required reporting within five working days after specified changes. The final text requires reporting five working days in advance, links the report to changes affecting the qualification and operating requirements in Articles 7 and 10, and adds a rectification-or-exit consequence if the institution no longer satisfies the basic conditions after the change.

Article 13 — institution exit. The prior-notice period increases from two months to six months. The final text replaces the draft’s self-preservation / merger / designated-preservation structure with transfer of all registration materials and related data to another surviving registration institution designated by the provincial authority after NDA approval, while preserving the validity of certificates and making clear that prior liability is not extinguished.

Article 15 — public data. The final text deletes the draft’s broad opening sentence that all market-circulable data may be registered. It also changes public-data products and services formed after authorized operation from “shall, after public-data-resource registration, conduct data-property registration” to “may conduct data-property registration” after completion of public-data-resource registration. Public utilities are narrowed from “public utility enterprises and public institutions” to public utility enterprises.

Article 18 — review consequences. The final text adds that where the applicant cannot supplement supporting materials and the registration institution cannot verify through lawful channels, registration may be terminated.

Article 20 — source-compliance review. The final text adds a path for unclear contractual entitlement: the institution may ask the applicant to supplement the agreement or make a reasonable and prudent judgment based on the facts. It also consolidates personal-information and important-data checks into a single item tied to PIPL, DSL and other laws, and changes the derived-data comparison from “substantial and significant difference” to “substantial difference” plus significantly higher value.

Article 21 — rights-clarity review. For data collected by another person under a civil contract, the final text narrows the condition from the principal having the right to “obtain or copy and transfer” the data to the right to obtain the relevant data. The remaining seven scenarios are structurally unchanged.

Articles 22-23 — refusal and recorded limitations. The final text broadens refusal from data involving national security or state secrets to registration that may harm national security, public interests or lawful rights and interests. It also broadens source illegality from violation of laws and administrative regulations to violation of laws and regulations, and adds legally required recorded matters to the rights-limitation list.

Articles 24-29 — platform mechanics. Public announcement, evidence preservation, certificate issuance and post-registration objections now operate through the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System. Article 25 is tightened into one paragraph and no longer separately limits the no-registration decision to discovery during the announcement period.

Articles 26-27 — validity of registration. The final text moves the five-year validity rule from certificate issuance to evidence preservation: the validity period is generally no more than five years and runs from completion of evidence preservation. Article 27 now focuses on certificate issuance and consistency with preserved system information.

Article 31 — certificate use. The financing use case is sharpened from “data balance-sheet entry, financing, equity contribution” to “data-asset balance-sheet entry, financing guarantees, and equity contribution by valuation.” The business-coordination sentence is also reordered so that fairness and independence remain the threshold condition.

Articles 33-37 — registration types. Later registration types now are handled “in principle” by the institution that handled the initial registration, adding flexibility. Transfer, change, renewal and deregistration applications refer to the data-property-rights registration certificate rather than only the initial-registration certificate. Renewal is now available from six months before expiry through the day before expiry. Deregistration notice becomes written notice to the original applicant.

Articles 38-41 — liability and transition. Liability terminology is aligned to the Service System and “laws and regulations.” Article 41 adds an express duty to preserve relevant materials when simplifying procedures for pre-existing data registrations.

Chapter 1 General Provisions

Article 1. Purpose. This Guide is formulated in order to establish and improve the Data Property Rights system, build a nationally unified Data Property Rights registration system, reduce the cost of data circulation and transactions, cultivate an open, shared and secure national integrated data market, and implement the Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Building a Fundamental Data System to Better Leverage the Role of Data as a Factor of Production, in accordance with the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other laws and regulations.

Article 2. Scope. Data Property Rights registration activities and the administration thereof carried out within the territory of the People’s Republic of China shall be conducted with reference to this Guide, except as otherwise provided by laws and regulations.

This Guide applies to Data Property Rights registration and administration of data in various forms, including data resources, data products and services.

Article 3. Definitions. For the purposes of this Guide:

  • Data Property Rights refers to the property rights enjoyed by a rights-holder over specific data, including the Right to Hold Data, the Right to Use Data, and the Right to Operate Data.
  • Right to Hold Data refers to the right of a rights-holder to hold lawfully acquired data, by itself or through another holder it entrusts.
  • Right to Use Data refers to the right of a rights-holder to use data through processing, aggregation, analysis, and other methods to optimize production and operations or to form derived data.
  • Right to Operate Data refers to the right of a rights-holder to provide data externally — for consideration or without consideration — through transfer, licensing, capital contribution, or the lawful creation of security interests over the data.
  • Data Property Rights registration refers to the act of a Data Property Rights registration institution reviewing the description, source, and rights content of data in accordance with this Guide, recording information including the attribution of data rights, and issuing a registration certificate.
  • Registration institution refers to a legal person selected and confirmed by the national data administration authority, included in the National Data Property Rights Registration Institution Catalogue, that carries out Data Property Rights registration activities.
  • Registration applicant refers to a natural person, legal person, or non-legal-person organization that applies to a registration institution for Data Property Rights registration.
  • Derived data refers to data formed by a data processor, in respect of data over which it enjoys the Right to Use Data, on the premise of protecting all parties’ lawful rights and interests, through the use of professional knowledge for processing, modelling analysis, key-information extraction and similar methods to achieve substantive changes to the content, form, structure and other aspects of the data, thereby significantly increasing the value of the data.

Article 4. Principles. Data Property Rights registration activities shall follow the principles of equality and voluntariness, standardization and unification, fairness and good faith, convenience and efficiency, and security and order. They shall not violate laws and regulations and shall not harm national security, the public interest, or others’ lawful rights and interests.

Article 5. Administration responsibilities. The national data administration authority is responsible for the administration of national Data Property Rights registration. Specific duties include: establishing and improving the nationally unified Data Property Rights registration system; guiding and supervising national Data Property Rights registration activities; building and administering the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System; and other duties prescribed by laws and regulations.

Provincial-level data administration authorities are responsible for the administration of Data Property Rights registration within their administrative regions. Specific duties include: guiding and supervising Data Property Rights registration activities within their administrative regions, conducting day-to-day administration of registration institutions within their administrative regions, coordinating cross-regional administration, and other duties prescribed by laws and regulations. Provincial-level data administration authorities may entrust municipal-level data administration authorities to carry out specific work.

Article 6. Registration service system. The National Data Property Rights Registration Service System aggregates registration results and provides, nationwide, unified Data Property Rights registration public announcement, registration-result inquiry and verification, and similar services. It supports the administration of registration institutions and related matters.

Chapter 2 Registration Institutions

Article 7. Basic qualifications. Registration institutions shall meet the following basic qualifications:

(I) Be an enterprise or public-institution legal person established under the law within the territory of the People’s Republic of China and in sound operating condition; for enterprise legal persons, the paid-up registered capital shall not be less than CNY 100 million; public-institution legal persons shall have funding support appropriate to the registration business they carry out;

(II) Have fixed office premises and infrastructure that meet operational needs;

(III) Have at least two years of experience in data registration or data-circulation related services;

(IV) Have a sound governance structure, registration-business administration system, registration-reviewer administration system, data security administration system, data-security risk-response plan, and service-withdrawal protection plan;

(V) Have a full-time review team whose members have professional capabilities in data, law and related fields and at least three years of work experience;

(VI) Have built an information system that supports Data Property Rights registration business, completed Multi-Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) Level 3 or higher filing for that system, and meet the basic conditions to interface with the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System;

(VII) Have no record of unfair competition, operational abnormality, or material illegal or non-compliant conduct in the past three years.

Article 8. Selection. Registration institutions are recommended by provincial-level data administration authorities and confirmed by the national data administration authority through selection. Selected registration institutions are included in the National Data Property Rights Registration Institution Catalogue, publicly disclosed, and connected to the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System.

Article 9. Selection procedure. Provincial-level data administration authorities shall conduct recommendation in accordance with the following requirements:

(I) Organize qualified enterprise and public-institution legal persons to submit applications;

(II) Conduct initial review of materials, expert evaluation, and collective decision-making to determine the recommendation list, and submit it to the national data administration authority.

Where the national data administration authority confirms an entity as a registration institution through the selection process, the provincial-level data administration authority shall organize the entity to submit registration-institution information on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System.

Article 10. General requirements for conducting registration business. A registration institution may practice across regions and carry out registration business nationwide. A registration institution shall conduct registration business in accordance with the following requirements:

(I) Conduct Data Property Rights registration in a public, fair, and impartial manner;

(II) Properly preserve registration materials, with a retention period of not less than 20 years;

(III) Promptly and accurately disclose the Data Property Rights registration process, fee schedule, complaint channels, etc.; regularly disclose information on registration-business handling and full-time review-team construction; and accept social supervision;

(IV) Operate and maintain the information system supporting Data Property Rights registration business and properly interface with the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System;

(V) Establish an information-reporting system and report Data Property Rights registration matters to the data administration authority in a timely manner as required;

(VI) Undertake confidentiality obligations with respect to materials provided by registration applicants and take necessary measures to safeguard data security and protect trade secrets; shall not disclose or unlawfully use such materials;

(VII) Shall not engage in activities that affect the fairness or independence of registration, shall not use registration convenience to seek improper benefits, and shall not, as a registration applicant, apply for registration at its own registration institution;

(VIII) Shall strive to enhance registration service capacity, reduce registration costs, and provide reasonably priced registration services; shall not coerce bundling with other charged items.

Article 11. Administration of registration institutions. Provincial-level data administration authorities shall strengthen the administration of registration institutions. They may, based on supervisory needs, guide registration institutions to conduct Data Property Rights registration business in compliance with laws and regulations through means such as supervision-and-direction and regulatory interview. Where a registration institution conducts Data Property Rights registration business in violation of laws and regulations, the data administration authority, in conjunction with relevant departments, shall verify and take effective measures. Suspected criminal leads shall be referred to relevant departments for handling in accordance with the law.

The provincial-level data administration authority of the place where a registration institution is domiciled conducts day-to-day administration of the institution and receives and handles public opinions regarding registration activities. Where a registration institution practices outside its domicile and engages in illegal or non-compliant conduct, the provincial-level data administration authority of the place of practice shall coordinate with the institution’s domicile provincial-level data administration authority. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through consultation, the national data administration authority shall provide guidance to resolve the issue.

The national data administration authority shall formulate annual evaluation standards for registration institutions and conduct examination of evaluation outcomes. Registration institutions shall, by March 31 of each year, report the previous year’s Data Property Rights registration business to the provincial-level data administration authority of their domicile, ensuring that the materials reported are true, accurate, and complete. The domicile provincial-level data administration authority shall conduct annual evaluation of registration institutions and submit the evaluation results and related materials to the national data administration authority by April 30 each year. Where potential risks are found through evaluation, effective measures shall be taken to handle them promptly and properly.

Article 12. Changes in registration institution information. Where a registration institution undergoes any of the following circumstances, it shall report to the provincial-level data administration authority five working days in advance:

(I) Change of name, domicile, registered capital, legal representative, or, for an enterprise legal person, controlling shareholder or actual controller;

(II) Material matters that affect the conditions or requirements listed in Article 7 or Article 10 of this Guide, or other material matters that may affect the normal conduct of registration business.

After the above changes are reviewed and confirmed, the information shall be updated on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System within five working days. Where, after the change, the registration institution no longer satisfies the basic-qualification requirements, the domicile data administration authority shall promptly guide the registration institution to rectify or withdraw from registration business.

Article 13. Withdrawal of registration institutions. A registration institution that wishes to withdraw from Data Property Rights registration business shall report to its domicile provincial-level data administration authority at least six months in advance and submit a withdrawal plan. The domicile provincial-level data administration authority shall make a decision on the withdrawal plan within 20 working days of receiving the report and plan. If withdrawal is approved, the relevant information shall be submitted to the national data administration authority within five working days of approval. Upon review and approval by the national data administration authority, the registration institution shall completely transfer all Data Property Rights registration materials and related data preserved by it to another surviving registration institution designated by the provincial-level data administration authority.

After a registration institution withdraws, the Data Property Rights registration certificates it issued during its registration business period remain unaffected, and legal liability arising from its registration acts during its practice period is not exempted in accordance with the law. Where fault during the registration institution’s practice period causes harm to others, the surviving legal person bears liability for damages. Where the registration-institution legal person has terminated, the matter shall be handled in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

Chapter 3 Registration Procedure

Article 14. Registration procedure. Data Property Rights registration is conducted through the procedures of application, acceptance, review, public announcement, objection handling, information evidence preservation, and certificate issuance.

Article 15. Public data resources. For data involving public data resources, the following shall apply:

  • Data collected and produced by Party and government organs in the performance of their statutory duties, and data collected by other enterprises and public institutions on the basis of need to perform statutory duties, shall not be subject to Data Property Rights registration;
  • After the authorized operation of public data resources, public data products and services formed through development may be subject to Data Property Rights registration after completion of registration on the public data resource registration platform;
  • Data produced by public utility enterprises in sectors such as water supply, gas supply, heating, electricity, and public transportation in the course of providing public services may be subject to Data Property Rights registration, unless otherwise provided.

Article 16. Registration application. Registration applicants shall, on a voluntary basis, apply for Data Property Rights registration to a registration institution by themselves or by entrusting others; they shall submit a registration application form and supporting materials regarding data source, Data Property Rights attribution, and other matters. Materials submitted shall be true, accurate, and complete, with no false records, misleading statements, or material omissions.

Article 17. Acceptance. Upon receipt of Data Property Rights registration application materials, the registration institution shall handle the application as follows and inform the applicant of the acceptance result within three working days:

(I) Where application materials are erroneous, incomplete, or non-conforming, the institution shall provide written notice of non-acceptance and inform the applicant in one go of the materials to be supplemented and the time limit for supplementation. If the applicant does not supplement materials on time, the application is deemed not made;

(II) Where application materials are complete and conforming, or where all required supplementary materials have been submitted as required, the institution shall accept the application and inform the applicant in writing.

A registration institution shall not refuse to accept an application without legitimate reason. The acceptance date is the date on which the institution informs the applicant of acceptance.

Where the registration institution fails to provide written notice of non-acceptance as required, the application is deemed accepted. The first working day after the notification time limit expires is the date of acceptance of the registration.

Article 18. Review principles. After accepting an application, the registration institution shall conduct reasonable and prudent review of the accuracy of the data description, the compliance of the data source, and the clarity of the Data Property Rights. The registration institution may require the applicant to supplement supporting materials and, where necessary, verify with interested parties or other relevant subjects. Where the registration applicant is unable to supplement supporting materials and the registration institution is unable to verify through lawful channels, the registration may be terminated.

Article 19. Accuracy review of data description. When reviewing the accuracy of the data description, the registration institution shall focus on whether the data name is concise, accurate, and unambiguous. The data name shall, in principle, include time, region, sector, content, and data type.

Article 20. Compliance review of data source. A registration applicant does not enjoy Data Property Rights over data obtained in violation of laws or regulations. When reviewing the compliance of the data source, the registration institution shall review the following:

  • For data generated through collection, whether the collection conduct is lawful and compliant;
  • For data obtained through agreement, whether the relevant agreement stipulates that the applicant enjoys the relevant Data Property Rights; where there is no stipulation or the stipulation is unclear, the registration applicant may be asked to supplement the stipulation, or a reasonable and prudent judgment may be made in light of the actual circumstances;
  • For public data collected through automated procedures, whether the registered data is public data and whether the applicant’s means and methods of data collection are lawful and compliant;
  • For data created through derivation, first whether the applicant has the Right to Use Data over the original data; second, whether the agreement stipulates the property-rights attribution of derived data — if no clear stipulation exists, whether there is a substantial difference in content, form, structure and other aspects from the original data, and whether the derived data has significantly higher value than the original data;
  • For data involving personal information, important data or similar data, whether the data was obtained in compliance with the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China and other laws and regulations.

Article 21. Clarity review of Data Property Rights. The registration institution shall review the clarity of Data Property Rights in accordance with the following requirements:

(I) Data processors may register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, and the Right to Operate over data collected and generated in their own production and operations, or in jointly participated production and operations, provided that the data was collected without violating laws, regulations, or contractual terms;

(II) Where various subjects, based on civil contract, authorize others to collect data that they cause to be produced and have the right to obtain the relevant data, they may register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, and the Right to Operate over the obtained data;

(III) Natural persons may register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, and the Right to Operate over data they lawfully collect, generate, or obtain;

(IV) For public data collected through automated procedures by a data processor that implements the national data classification and grading protection system requirements — and that does so without unlawful intrusion into others’ networks, without disrupting normal network service operations, without destroying effective technical measures, and without harming the lawful rights and interests of individuals or organizations — the data processor may register the Right to Hold and the Right to Use. For data products formed therefrom — provided they do not substantively substitute for the products and services of the data-collected party — the data processor may register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, and the Right to Operate;

(V) Where multiple data processors cooperatively advance data integration and development, they shall register the relevant rights in accordance with their contract. Where there is no contractual stipulation on Data Property Rights over integrated data, or where the stipulation is unclear, each participating party may register the Right to Hold and the Right to Use. Subject to obtaining the consent of the other participating parties, the parties may register the Right to Operate;

(VI) Where a data processor, on the basis of the Right to Use Data held by it, applies professional knowledge — processing, modeling and analysis, key information extraction, etc. — to effect a substantial change in the content, form, or structure of the data, and thereby significantly enhances the value of the data to form derived data, the data processor may register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, and the Right to Operate over the derived data, on the premise of protecting the lawful rights and interests of all parties;

(VII) Where another party is entrusted to process data, except as otherwise provided by law or stipulated by contract, the entrusted party may not register the Right to Hold, the Right to Use, or the Right to Operate over the original data, process data, or result data of the entrusted processing.

The Right to Hold Data, the Right to Use Data, and the Right to Operate Data are mutually independent. The same rights-holder may hold all of them or only one or more of them; over the same data and the same right, different rights-holders may hold rights simultaneously without exclusion.

Article 22. Non-registration. Where, upon review, any of the following circumstances exists, the registration institution shall not register and shall provide written notice to the applicant:

(I) The data registration may endanger national security, the public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of individuals or organizations;

(II) The data source violates the provisions of laws and regulations;

(III) There is an unresolved data-attribution dispute;

(IV) The applicant has concealed actual circumstances or provided false certifications;

(V) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and regulations as not eligible for registration.

Article 23. Recording of rights limitations. Where any of the following circumstances exists, it shall be recorded by way of remark:

(I) Where the term, conditions, or other matters of exercise of Data Property Rights are stipulated;

(II) Property-preservation measures, including seizure, lawfully implemented by the people’s court, people’s procuratorate, public security organ, or other authorized organ;

(III) Temporary control measures taken by the administrative competent authority for the purpose of safeguarding national security and the public interest;

(IV) Matters that laws and regulations require to be recorded;

(V) Other matters that the registration institution deems necessary to record.

Article 24. Public announcement. Where none of the circumstances in Article 22 apply, the registration institution shall publicly announce, on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System, the applicant’s information, data name, data overview, and recorded rights limitations. With legitimate reasons, the applicant may apply to the registration institution for non-publication; the registration institution shall determine the matter in light of the actual circumstances.

The public announcement period is five working days, calculated from the date the announcement is published on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System.

Article 25. Handling of objections during the announcement period. Where an objection is raised against the announcement content, the objecting party shall provide reasons and related materials. The registration institution shall investigate the objection within 10 working days from receipt of the objection, may require the applicant to provide explanation, and shall promptly issue a handling decision.

Where it is found that registration should not occur, the registration institution shall make a decision not to register.

Article 26. Information evidence preservation. The registration institution shall, in the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System, perform evidence preservation on important matters and registration results during the registration process, including but not limited to the applicant’s basic information, basic data situation, rights content, and rights limitations. This shall ensure that registration information cannot be tampered with, that the registration process is traceable, and that registration content can be verified. The applicant may voluntarily provide data watermark, data fingerprint, or similar information for the registration institution to preserve as evidence. The registered matters are deemed registered upon completion of evidence preservation of the registration information. The validity period of Data Property Rights registration is generally no longer than five years, calculated from the date evidence preservation of the registration information is completed. Renewal requires renewal registration.

Article 27. Certificate issuance. Upon completion of registration, the registration institution shall issue a certificate in accordance with the unified format and coding requirements provided by the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System and shall affix the institution’s dedicated registration seal. (A sample certificate and the coding rules appear in Annex 6.) Where the content of the registration certificate is inconsistent with the information preserved in the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System, the latter shall prevail.

Article 28. Time limit for registration. The registration institution shall complete Data Property Rights registration procedures within 10 working days from acceptance of the application. Where extension is required due to complex data source, large data scale, or other reasons, the period may be appropriately extended, but the extension shall not exceed an additional 10 working days. Registration institutions are encouraged to optimize and innovate registration services to improve efficiency and shorten time limits.

Time spent supplementing supporting materials, public announcement, and objection handling is not counted toward the period specified in the preceding paragraph.

Article 29. Handling of objections after registration is complete. Where an objecting party considers that a Data Property Rights registration involves an attribution dispute or a registration error, the party may raise an objection to the registration institution via the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System. Submission of an objection requires the objection application and preliminary evidence.

The registration institution shall review the completeness of the objection materials. If complete, the institution shall provide written notice to the registration applicant within five working days of receiving the materials.

If the applicant acknowledges the objection content, the registration institution shall, in accordance with procedures, modify the registration content or deregister.

If the applicant does not acknowledge the objection content, the applicant shall submit relevant explanatory materials. The registration institution may require the applicant and the objecting party to cooperate in the investigation and may issue an objection-handling conclusion. If both parties accept the conclusion, the registration institution shall handle the matter accordingly.

If either the applicant or the objecting party does not accept the registration institution’s handling conclusion, the party may, as agreed, apply to an arbitration institution for arbitration or institute a lawsuit with a people’s court. The registration institution shall handle the matter in accordance with the effective legal instrument of the people’s court or arbitration institution. Local data administration authorities with conditions to do so are encouraged to provide mediation services.

Article 30. Inquiry of registration materials. A registration applicant or interested party may, in accordance with the law, inquire about and copy necessary Data Property Rights registration materials. The registration institution shall provide them.

Relevant state organs may, in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, inquire about and copy Data Property Rights registration materials related to the matters they are investigating or handling.

Units and individuals that inquire about or copy Data Property Rights registration materials shall explain the purpose of inquiry and copying to the registration institution. They shall not use the materials obtained for other purposes; without the consent of the rights-holder, they shall not disclose the materials obtained.

Article 31. Use of registration certificates and national mutual recognition. In the following activities, a Data Property Rights registration certificate may serve as proof of the attribution and content of Data Property Rights:

(I) In data circulation transactions, as proof of Data Property Rights;

(II) In data-asset balance-sheet entry, financing guarantees, equity contribution by valuation and similar activities, as proof of lawful ownership or control of data;

(III) In the resolution of data-related disputes, as evidence of attribution determination;

(IV) In support policies such as data-enterprise cultivation and accreditation, as evidence to judge a company’s data situation.

Registration institutions are encouraged, on the premise that registration fairness and independence are not affected, to strengthen business coordination among Data Property Rights registration, data quality evaluation, value evaluation, etc., and provide full-process services to the market.

When data circulation service institutions provide services, they shall accept the registration certificate issued under this Guide. Without legitimate reason, they shall not conduct duplicate review or duplicate charge.

Chapter 4 Registration Types

Article 32. Types. Data Property Rights registration includes initial registration, transfer registration, change registration, renewal registration, and deregistration.

Article 33. Initial registration. Initial registration means the first registration of Data Property Rights over specific data with a registration institution.

To apply for initial registration, the applicant shall submit an initial registration application form (see template in Annex 1), supporting materials of the applicant’s identity, supporting materials of the lawful acquisition of Data Property Rights, data samples, and data description, among other materials.

For the same data, other types of registration can only be conducted after initial registration is completed. Other registration types shall in principle be handled by the registration institution that handled the initial registration.

Article 34. Transfer registration. Where a transferor has completed initial registration and holds the Right to Hold Data, the Right to Use Data, and the Right to Operate Data, and intends to transfer all or part of the Data Property Rights to a transferee without retaining the transferred portion, the transferor and the transferee shall jointly apply for transfer registration.

To apply for transfer registration, the applicant shall submit a transfer registration application form (see template in Annex 2), the transfer contract, and the Data Property Rights registration certificate, among other materials. If the registration institution accepts and approves the transfer registration, it shall adjust the transferor’s Data Property Rights registration certificate accordingly.

Article 35. Change registration. Where matters such as the rights-holder, data source, or rights type do not involve major changes, but the following circumstances arise, the applicant may apply for change registration:

(I) Changes in applicant identity information, such as name, legal representative, or address;

(II) Errors in or changes to the data description information, data time-span, or similar matters.

To apply for change registration, the applicant shall submit a change registration application form (see template in Annex 3), the Data Property Rights registration certificate, and supporting materials for the change content.

Article 36. Renewal registration. From six months before the expiration of the validity period of the Data Property Rights registration certificate through the day before expiration, the applicant may apply to the registration institution for renewal registration. Where the validity period of the Data Property Rights registration certificate expires and renewal registration is not applied for, the registration certificate automatically becomes invalid.

To apply for renewal registration, the applicant shall submit a renewal registration application form (see template in Annex 4) and the Data Property Rights registration certificate.

Article 37. Deregistration. Under the following circumstances, the registration institution shall deregister registered Data Property Rights:

(I) The applicant applies for deregistration;

(II) The Data Property Rights of the original rights-holder have been extinguished due to data destruction or similar reasons;

(III) Deregistration should be conducted in accordance with the outcome of objection handling;

(IV) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and regulations.

To apply for deregistration, the applicant shall submit a deregistration application form (see template in Annex 5), the Data Property Rights registration certificate, and other materials required by the registration institution. Where the registration institution finds that the registration certificate should be deregistered, it may deregister on its own initiative and notify the original applicant in writing.

Article 38. Liability of registration institutions. Registration institutions are liable in accordance with the law for the accuracy of registration results. Where a registration institution or its staff engages in any of the following conduct, with relatively minor circumstances, the provincial-level data administration authority of the institution’s domicile shall order rectification within a time limit and suspend the institution from publishing registration information on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service System. Where circumstances are serious or rectification is refused, the institution shall be removed from the National Data Property Rights Registration Institution Catalogue. Where a violation constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be borne in accordance with the law:

(I) Registering an application that does not meet registration requirements or registering erroneously, due to intent or gross negligence;

(II) Tampering with, damaging, or forging Data Property Rights registration information and registration certificates;

(III) Disclosing Data Property Rights registration materials, registration information, etc., and thereby harming national security, the public interest, or others’ lawful rights and interests;

(IV) Other illegal or non-compliant conduct.

Where the registration institution engages in the above conduct and causes harm to others, it shall bear liability for damages in accordance with the law. After bearing liability, the registration institution may, in accordance with the law, seek recourse against other responsible parties.

Article 39. Liability of registration applicants. Where a registration applicant engages in any of the following conduct that causes harm to others, the applicant shall bear civil liability for damages in accordance with the law; where a crime is constituted, the applicant shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with the law:

(I) Obtaining registration by deception, including concealment of true circumstances and provision of false materials;

(II) Intentionally seeking improper benefit through duplicate registration;

(III) Harming national security, the public interest, or others’ lawful rights and interests;

(IV) Other illegal or non-compliant conduct.

Article 40. Liability of data administration authority staff. Staff of data administration authorities who, in administering Data Property Rights registration activities, abuse power, neglect duty, or engage in malpractice for personal gain shall bear corresponding penalties or administrative sanctions in accordance with the law; where a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be borne in accordance with the law.

Chapter 6 Supplementary Provisions

Article 41. Coordination with other registrations. Before this Guide takes effect, for data registrations of other types that have been completed and where the matters reviewed are consistent with the requirements of this Guide, the registration institution may, in light of specific circumstances, simplify the review procedure and preserve the relevant materials.

Article 42. Meaning of “or more” and “or less”. As used in this Guide, the terms “or more” (以上) and “or less” (以内) include the cited number.

Annexes

The Trial Guide attaches six annexes, summarized here rather than translated verbatim:

  • Annex 1 — Initial Registration Application Form. Fields: applicant identity, contact information, business information; data information (name, overview, sector under GB/T 4754, source, geographic and temporal range, update frequency, data volume, data form, use restrictions); rights configuration.
  • Annex 2 — Transfer Registration Application Form. Fields: data name, original certificate number; transferor and transferee identity, contact, and address; content of rights transferred.
  • Annex 3 — Change Registration Application Form. Fields: data name, certificate number; applicant identity; change matter (before/after content).
  • Annex 4 — Renewal Registration Application Form. Fields: data name, certificate number; applicant identity; renewal matter (renewal period, rights types being renewed).
  • Annex 5 — Deregistration Application Form. Fields: data name, certificate number; applicant identity; reason for deregistration.
  • Annex 6 — Data Property Rights Registration Certificate Sample and Coding Rules. The certificate code is 15 digits, consisting of: fixed identifier (2 digits — “SJ”), region (2 digits — per PRC administrative-division codes), registration institution (1 digit), code-issuance date (6 digits — YYYY-MM), and serial number (4 digits, capped at 9999 per month). Total positions: 15.
§ RELATED LAWS

See also.

§ COMMENTARY

Briefs on this law.

20 briefs reference this law.

  • § 01 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    China's Data Property Rights Registration Guide Is Final: The Draft-to-Trial Diff

    On 1 July 2026, the National Data Administration issued the Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide (Trial), converting its April 2026 consultation draft into China's first national framework for registering the Right to Hold Data, Right to Use Data and Right to Operate Data. The final text keeps the same six-chapter, 42-article structure, but the diff is not cosmetic: security and public-interest gates are stronger; derived data is now defined; the national infrastructure shifts from a service platform to a service system; registrars face tighter qualification, disclosure, annual-evaluation, change-reporting and exit rules; public-data registration is softened from mandatory to conditional/voluntary wording; unclear contractual entitlement receives a cure path; evidence preservation, not certificate issuance, now starts the validity period; and certificate use is sharpened for data-asset balance-sheet entry, financing guarantees and valuation-based equity contribution.

    data-property-rights · data-registration · data-economy
  • § 02 · DATA-ECONOMY

    Li Yang: Why 'Data Rights-Confirmation' Is a Category Error — Dynamic Data Can't Be a Registration Object, and AUCL Article 13 Is the Better Path

    DCC's summary of an opinion piece by Li Yang (李扬), professor at China University of Political Science and Law, arguing that the whole project of 'data rights-confirmation' (数据确权) — and the data-IP registration pilots run under it — rests on a category error. In Chinese IP law, 'confirmation' (确权) is the authoritative validation of an already-existing right, and it presupposes three things data lacks: a determinate object, defined rights content, and clear boundaries. Civil Code Art. 127 only defers the question; 'data IP' is a policy concept, not a legal one; and data is co-produced by many parties, so registration proves who submitted data, not who owns it. Li Yang's sharpest move is the dynamic-object problem: registration regimes (real estate, IP, equity) require a persistently stable object, but data's value lives in continuous updating, so the data at registration is never the data in dispute — and blockchain/hash/timestamp '存证' only fix a historical snapshot, never the living data stream, confusing proof-of-existence with object-identification. He concludes that registration's real functions are evidentiary and publicity/transaction-support — not rights-confirmation — and that data governance should move from rights-confirmation to interest-protection, from static-rights thinking to dynamic-competition thinking, protecting commercial-data interests under Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. DCC's read for overseas counsel, against the data-IP registration regime and the Beijing Internet Court's first AUCL Article 13 ruling.

    data-economy · data-property-rights · data-registration
  • § 03 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Data 'Parallel Property Rights' — They Can Confer Status, but Can't Secure Control

    Part four — and the synthesis — of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework takes up 'parallel property rights' (数据平行财产权): how to allocate rights when the *same* data is held, used, and operated by *multiple* parties at once. Building on Xiong Bingwan and Zhuang Hongshan's 'one-data, multiple-rights' (一数数权) idea — data is non-rivalrous and copyable, so the same right over the same data can sit with several parties without excluding each other — Hong argues parallel property rights are best understood as *default rules* for incomplete-contract, collaborative-production settings: internally, parallel use is presumed; externally, operation is classified by data type (by-products each party may operate alone; purpose-built or fused data needs the others' consent); and parallel holders share a *joint defensive* interest against third parties. But the substance, he shows, falls back on derivative data — and here Xiong, Xu Ke (许可), and Shen Weixing (申卫星), despite different scenarios and tests, all tilt the derivative-data right to the *processor*, leaving the data contributor with contract/compensation/tort/PI remedies rather than ownership of the new product. DCC's read for overseas counsel: parallel property rights cut *attribution* uncertainty (who may use, operate, defend) but not *control* uncertainty (future use, detection, tracing, modelled value, third-party chains, ongoing compliance) — status, not control.

    data-property-rights · parallel-property-rights · derivative-data
  • § 04 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Why Upstream Won't Operate Its Data — Control Degradation, Derivative Data, and Irreducible Uncertainty

    Part three of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' framework turns to the Right to Operate Data (数据经营权) — the right to provide data externally by transfer, licence, capital contribution, or pledge — and asks a question prior to 'what does operation transfer?': in real conditions, *will* an upstream party operate its data at all? His answer: yes, but narrowly. Control-dependent upstreams (platforms, holders of core user or irreplaceable industrial/training data) tend not to provide open, raw, autonomous access, and shift to controlled use or simply decline. The reason is structural. Once a downstream party is licensed to use data, the derivative data it produces is a *new object*: the upstream's *erga omnes* (对世) control over the raw data does not reach it, leaving the upstream — at most — a contractual claim against one counterparty. Hong then catalogues the uncertainties an upstream faces *ex ante*: some that attribution rules could touch but can't eliminate (qualification of the output, default ownership, good-faith of the processor, measurement of remedy), and some no rule can reach (combinatorial/unforeseeable value, undetectable misuse, the privity-and-insolvency chain, fusion and co-ownership, abstraction leakage into model parameters and learned skills, personal-information exposure, and counterparty hold-up). DCC's read for overseas counsel: this is the rigorous explanation of why Chinese data 'supply' is thin and why sandbox / privacy-computing structures dominate — defining a right does not supply the conditions to exercise it.

    data-property-rights · data-operation-right · data-economy
  • § 05 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    When the 'Right to Use Data' Goes External — Provision, Derivative Data, and the Erosion of Upstream Control

    Part two of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework turns to the Right to Use Data (数据使用权). The official definition (国家数据局, Common Data Terms Batch 2) makes the use right an *internal* power — 'I use my own data' to process, aggregate, analyse, and form derivative data — exercised on the premise of *not* providing data externally. So 'granting a use right to a downstream party' is not the use right travelling outward; it is the upstream party exercising its **operation right** to license, while the downstream party acquires a use right. That externalisation flips the downstream's legal position from PIPL **entrusted processor** (委托处理) to **provision** (提供) or **joint processing** — triggering notice and *separate consent* for personal information, and the Network Data Security Regulation's contracting duties. And because a strong use right lets the downstream form **derivative data** (衍生数据) — models, scores, indices, labels — value migrates downstream even though the raw data stays upstream. DCC's read for overseas counsel: in China data deals the use right is real but never self-bounding; whether a partner will grant an open, autonomous use right depends on its business model (control-dependent vs monetisation), and the default structure you should expect is *controlled use* (sandbox, privacy computing, federated modelling), not a clean copy.

    data-property-rights · data-use-right · data-economy
  • § 06 · DATA-ECONOMY

    China Halts Data-Asset ABS: Exchanges Pull the Handbrake on a ¥200 Billion Pipeline

    According to reporting by Caixin (财新) and 财联社 circulated on 3–5 June 2026, the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges issued window guidance bringing the entire data-asset ABS (数据资产ABS) business chain to a stop — new filings turned away, approved-but-unissued deals told to pause, even issuance-approved deals told to delay. This halts a category that exploded from roughly 11 issuances raising ~¥4.6bn in 2025 to 21 issuances and ¥15.4bn in the first five months of 2026, with a declared pipeline approaching ¥200bn. The stated trigger is mission drift: pure-data-asset deals are under 2% of the market, while local-government financing vehicles (城投/LGFV) used the loose, fast 'data-asset' label to repackage existing non-standard debt as standardised bonds — data as window-dressing, with no real data cash flow behind it. DCC reads the event, the structural reasons, the three審查 gates the exchanges are expected to harden, and what it means for anyone underwriting, rating, or investing in China data-asset financing.

    data-economy · data-asset-abs · securitisation
  • § 07 · DATA-ECONOMY

    What a 'Data-Asset ABS' Actually Securitises — The Collateral Is Data, the Cash Flow Is Not

    The name misleads. A Chinese 'data-asset ABS' (数据资产证券化) is labelled as such when data-pledged collateral exceeds 50% of the asset pool — but the underlying assets that actually generate the repayment cash flow are conventional financial claims: supply-chain receivables, trust-loan beneficiary rights, or finance-lease claims. Data is the collateral, the credit-enhancement, or the pricing-and-monitoring tool — not the cash-flow source. This brief, the second in DCC's data-asset-ABS series, unpacks the mechanism overseas counsel need to price the risk: the four live deal structures (trust-loan, receivables, finance-lease, data-empowerment); the difference between accounting recognition (入表) and legal right-confirmation (确权); and the four legal infirmities that make these deals fragile — unsettled data property rights, the true-sale problem created by data's non-exclusivity, the limits of bankruptcy isolation when asset value depends on the originator's continued operation, and the PIPL/DSL eligibility gates. It reads the flagship deals (平安-如皋, 华鑫-鑫欣, 青岛, 杭州高新金投) for what each actually did.

    data-economy · data-asset-abs · securitisation
  • § 08 · DATA-ECONOMY

    From Collateral to Cash Flow: The 'Secondary Licensing' Model That Would Make Data-Asset ABS Real

    If today's data-asset ABS is '1.0' — data as collateral behind a conventional debt claim — then '2.0' is the version where the data's own cash flow (licensing fees, data-service subscriptions) directly repays the securities, upgrading data from credit-enhancement tool to genuine underlying asset. This third brief in DCC's data-asset-ABS series examines the structure most likely to get there: the 'secondary licensing' (二次许可) model borrowed from intellectual-property ABS, in which a holder exclusively licenses data to an originator for an upfront lump sum, then takes a reverse exclusive licence back and pays periodic fees that become the ABS cash flow — ownership never moving. It maps the obstacles (data's non-exclusivity defeats 'exclusive licence' and 'exclusive possession'; PIPL/DSL cap what can be licensed; valuation is immature), the finance-lease-of-data variant, and the early policy encouragement (Anhui's March 2026 measures endorsing reverse-licensing). The irony the June 2026 halt exposed: regulators want real data cash flow — which is exactly what 2.0 promises but cannot yet deliver at scale.

    data-economy · data-asset-abs · securitisation
  • § 09 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Two Paths for the 'Right to Hold Data' — and Why the Narrow One May Add Little

    Hong Yanqing (洪延青, 网安寻路人) works through the most unstable concept in China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework — the Right to Hold Data (数据持有权). He pushes two readings to their logical ends. Path 1, the official 'complete separation' (三权完全切割): if the rights to hold, use, and operate data are truly independent, the holding right shrinks to a bare 'lawful-control state' whose only content is defensive — and that defense is already provided, against the world, by PIPL Article 10, DSL Article 32, the Network Data Security Regulation, and Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, so its incremental value as a standalone property right is thin. Path 2, the 'mother-right' reconstruction (持有权母权化): redefine 'holding' from factual control to a normative control that contains utilization potential, so the rights to use and operate are carved out from within it. DCC's read for overseas counsel: in Chinese data deals the tradeable substance sits in the rights to use and operate plus contract, registration, and compliance — not in 'who holds the data' — and China's data-property theory is still genuinely unsettled.

    data-property-rights · data-holding-right · data-economy
  • § 10 · DATA-PLEDGE-FINANCING

    Data Pledge Financing in China: What Is Actually Being Pledged, and Where the Law Gets Stuck

    As Chinese banks and data exchanges experiment with data pledge financing (数据质押融资), a threshold question remains unresolved: what, legally, is being pledged? Chen Yiqian of Shenzhen Data Exchange walks through the two available routes under the Civil Code — chattel pledge (动产质权) and rights pledge (权利质权) — and the three operational problems that make chattel pledge difficult and the two doctrinal barriers that make rights pledge harder still. The analysis converges on a practical conclusion: chattel pledge via a third-party data custodian is the most workable path today, while data property rights and data intellectual-property rights both remain insufficiently legalised to support a reliable pledge. For overseas counsel advising on China data-asset financing, the gap between policy ambition and legal infrastructure is the central risk to price. Connects to the broader data property-rights registration project and the unresolved question of how data enters corporate balance sheets.

    data-pledge-financing · data-property-rights · data-as-asset
  • § 11 · JUDICIAL

    Datatang v. Yinmu — China's First Ruling on a Data-IP Registration Certificate, and Why Open-Sourced Data Is Still Protected

    A consolidated case study of 数据堂诉隐木科技 (Datatang v. Yinmu) — the Beijing IP Court's June 2024 appeal ruling, widely called China's first case on the evidentiary effect of a data-IP registration certificate. The dispute: Datatang built voice datasets for AI training, open-sourced some under a license; Yinmu took and redistributed them in the same data-services market. DCC synthesizes four commentaries (the case report, a Tsinghua analysis, and two Shenzhen Data Exchange DEXC+ deep-dives) into the four holdings that matter for overseas counsel: (1) a data-IP registration certificate is prima facie evidence of property-type interests and lawful sourcing — but not an absolute property right (property-rights-statutism); (2) open-sourced data, though neither trade secret nor copyrightable compilation, is protectable under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law's general clause; (3) the protection hierarchy (compilation work → trade secret → AUCL Art. 2); and (4) whether the taker honored the open-source license is the hinge for 'improper conduct.'

    judicial · data-property-rights · data-registration
  • § 12 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    The 'Rights Block' — Xu Ke's Structural Theory Behind China's Data-Property Framework

    Xu Ke's highly-cited (255×) 政法论坛 article on the structure of data rights — the theoretical scaffolding that the Data 20 Articles' three-rights framework rests on. He maps the field's two warring paradigms (formalist 'empowerment' vs substantivist 'conduct regulation'), argues both fail alone, and integrates them via a 'reflexive law' approach. The payoff is a taxonomy of three possible rights structures — rights-ball, rights-bundle, rights-block — and the case that the 'data rights block' (数据权利块) best fits data's 'one principle, many manifestations' character. For overseas counsel, this is the conceptual map that explains why Chinese data rights are structured the way they are — and why Western property and IP analogies keep failing.

    data-property-rights · data-rights-theory · data-twenty
  • § 13 · DATA-ASSET

    When Does Data Become an Asset? Xu Ke on Identifying and Defining Data Assets

    Xu Ke (UIBE), writing for a practitioner audience, draws the line between data resource (国家视角, public/strategic) and data asset (市场主体视角, commercial), then between the broad sense (anything that creates value for the enterprise) and the narrow sense (meets the MOF accounting-standard test for on-balance-sheet recognition — owned/controlled, generates economic benefit, reliably measurable). He works the three-rights framework into operational boundaries by data type (personal / enterprise / government) and flags the practical questions overseas counsel face when a Chinese counterparty wants to put data on its balance sheet.

    data-asset · data-property-rights · data-on-balance-sheet
  • § 14 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Wang Nian — Data Source's Rights as a 'Fair Use' Right Alongside the Three Rights

    Wang Nian (Tsinghua Law) takes on the unresolved fourth-right question in the Data 20 Articles framework: what is the data source's right (数据来源者权), and how does it relate to the three rights (hold/use/operate)? Drawing on the 'data symbiosis' (数据共生) framework from the ALI-ELI Data Economy Principles and the EU Data Act, Wang argues that pre-existing legal entitlements — privacy, PI rights, IP, trade secrets — cover only part of the source's interest, leaving a residual that needs an independent legal protection. He frames the data-source right as a 'fair use right' (公平使用权): a contractual-relationship right against the specific data processor, distinct from the property-style three rights, that captures the value contribution of the source's participation in data co-creation. The corporate-data-portability analog DCC flagged in our NDA brief gets its doctrinal foundation here.

    data-property-rights · data-twenty · data-source-rights
  • § 15 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    NDA Explains the Three-Rights Framework — A Plain-Language Walk-Through from the Regulator Itself

    The National Data Administration's official 政策解读 (policy interpretation) on the three-rights framework — the right to hold, the right to use, and the right to operate data — established by the Data 20 Articles. NDA walks through what each right means, illustrative scenarios (group-company data subsidiaries; hospital-pharma research pools; data-broker commission arrangements), how the rights relate to each other (independently severable; non-exclusive across parties for the same data), and why the structural-separation design was chosen over a unitary-ownership model. The clearest available statement of the regulator's own intent on the framework that anchors every downstream rule — data-resource registration, data-property-rights registration, FTZ data-circulation negative lists, on-floor / over-the-counter trading rules.

    data-property-rights · data-twenty · structural-separation
  • § 16 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Who Is the 'Data Processor' Under the Three-Rights Framework — NDA's Farm-Equipment Hypothetical

    NDA's official 政策解读 on the threshold question that every three-rights allocation depends on: who is the 'data processor' and who is the 'information subject'? NDA uses a farm-equipment hypothetical — a farm rents tractor, irrigation, and fertilizer equipment from three different vendors; cultivation data is captured in the process — to work through who collects, who decides processing purposes, and how the property-rights regime balances the data-processor's commercial interest against the information-subject's rights to access copies of relevant data. The piece sketches the basic information-subject vs. data-processor dichotomy that anchors the entire downstream data-element regime, and surfaces the access-to-data right (data portability for commercial entities) that overseas counsel often miss.

    data-property-rights · data-twenty · data-processor
  • § 17 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Inside the Reviewer's Mind — A Compliance Guide to Data Property-Rights Registration at Shenzhen Data Exchange

    China's data property-rights registration (数据产权登记) regime has no single national rulebook yet, which makes the reviewer's checklist at the registrar level the operational baseline for any applicant. This brief summarises a practitioner guide by two compliance managers at Shenzhen Data Exchange (深圳数据交易所), explaining what registration reviewers actually scrutinise: whether the subject-matter falls within the platform's accepted scope; whether the applicant can substantiate entitlement to one or more of the three data-property rights (持有权 / 使用权 / 经营权); and whether the submitted materials are internally consistent and complete. The guide also clarifies common misconceptions about the 'three rights' structure — including why 'data ownership' is not a legally recognised concept and why holding-right does not automatically confer use-right or operating-right. For overseas counsel advising clients on data-asset registration, this is the clearest available account of how the first-mover registrar reads applications.

    data-property-rights · data-registration · data-economy
  • § 18 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    From Copyright to Data Property: The Three-Layer Compliance Test for Registering Employee-Created Data in China

    China's data property-rights registration regime treats copyright and data property (数据产权) as separate legal categories — a distinction that catches many applicants off guard when employee-created works are involved. This brief summarises a practitioner analysis by two Shenzhen Data Exchange compliance officers, who explain the three-layer 'penetrating review' (穿透审核) logic that registrars actually apply: lawful acquisition (合法获取), factual control (事实持有), and defined scope of use (使用范围). For overseas counsel advising clients that hold data generated by employees — including code, engineering drawings, maps, and other special categories of work-made-for-hire under China's Copyright Law — the key operational takeaway is that a copyright certificate alone is insufficient. Registration of all three data property rights (holding right, use right, operating right) requires distinct evidence chains for each, and the employment contract is the starting document, not the copyright certificate.

    data-property-rights · data-registration · work-made-for-hire
  • § 19 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    Will Judicial Review 'Reset' the Data Registration Rush? — Reading Wang Qinglan on the SPC's New Data Disputes Case Category

    Wang Qinglan, head of compliance at a Chinese data exchange, asks what the Supreme People's Court's new 'data disputes' case category — effective January 1, 2026 — does to the data property rights registration certificates that institutions across the country have been issuing. Her argument: certificates issued through formal-only review will not survive substantive judicial scrutiny, and a single rejected certificate could erode trust in the entire registration regime. The path forward is a three-tiered protection model and aligned standards across regulators, registration institutions, and courts.

    data-property-rights · data-registration · spc
  • § 20 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS

    What Does Data Registration Actually Confirm? — A Doctrinal Reading

    Long before the SPC's January 2026 'data disputes' case category started squeezing data registration certificates against judicial review, Wang Qinglan had already written the foundational critique: data registration does not 'confirm rights' because there are no legal data rights to confirm. The Data 20 Articles created data property rights, not data legal rights, and Chinese property rights are not Article-conferred civil rights. Registration certificates are 'trust credentials,' not 'rights certificates.' This is the doctrinal essay overseas counsel should read before the SPC sequel.

    data-property-rights · data-registration · civil-law-doctrine
§ SUBSCRIBE

The Monday brief.

One short email every Monday. New briefs on Chinese data-compliance rules from the previous week, with the source law cited.

Opt-in only. Unsubscribe anytime by replying "unsubscribe" to any issue.

SUPPORT DCC

Keep the publication free to read. Suggested support is $19.99, or choose your own amount.

Support →