Issued by: Supreme People’s Court. Document No.: Fa Fa [2026] No. 10 (法发〔2026〕10号). Issued and effective: 7 September 2026. Document type: Judicial policy document (司法文件) — an SPC “Opinions” (意见) in the 法发 series, not a judicial interpretation (司法解释) in the 法释 series.
DCC translation note. The Opinions were released at a Supreme People’s Court press conference on 7 September 2026 and published in full the same day on the Court’s official WeChat channel, which is the source used here. The text carries the Court’s document number and date but no separate effective-date clause, so it operates from issue. Under the SPC’s rules on citing normative documents in judgments, a 法发 document may support the court’s reasoning but is not itself cited as the legal basis of a ruling — judges cite the statute and use the Opinions to apply it. Inside the court system it is binding guidance, and in practice it is the line trial courts will follow. The Chinese numbers the 24 provisions （一） to （二十四） running across five parts; the SPC’s own press materials call them Articles 1–24, and DCC follows that convention. Three DCC pages accompany this text: a one-page visual reader of the instrument, the Court’s release note with an article-by-article map, and the press-conference Q&A.
Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law
In order to fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and of the plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, to serve and safeguard the accelerated development of new quality productive forces through strict and impartial adjudication, and to guide the People’s Courts at all levels in trying cases involving artificial intelligence disputes in accordance with law, the following Opinions are put forward in accordance with the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant laws, and in light of the actual adjudication work of the People’s Courts.
I. General Requirements
Article 1 — Guiding ideology. Adhere to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, conscientiously implement General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important thinking on building China into a cyber power, deeply recognize that artificial intelligence is an important driving force of the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, uphold equal emphasis on development and security and the combination of promoting innovation with governance in accordance with law, try cases involving artificial intelligence disputes impartially in accordance with law, promote improvement in the safety, reliability, controllability and fairness of the application of artificial intelligence technology, and provide strong judicial services and safeguards for comprehensively advancing the building of a strong country and the great cause of national rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernization.
Article 2 — Basic principles.
Adhere to a people-centered approach. Give play to the guiding role of judicial adjudication, actively guide artificial intelligence toward enhancing the people’s well-being, and earnestly strengthen judicial protection of people’s livelihood rights and interests in the digital era. Actively and prudently explore and improve the adjudication rules and mechanisms in the artificial intelligence field, including those concerning algorithmic ethics and algorithmic rules; make full and good use of existing legal provisions; properly respond to the rule conflicts, social risks and ethical challenges brought by the development of artificial intelligence technology; promote the improvement of the social-responsibility system of artificial intelligence enterprises; attach importance to preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination; safeguard in accordance with law the individual’s right to know and right to choose in automated decision-making; prevent and regulate the abuse of artificial intelligence technology to infringe the lawful rights and interests of the people; and promote artificial intelligence that serves the people and is oriented toward good.
Support innovation and development. Respect the laws of scientific and technological innovation and the development practice of the artificial intelligence industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation through judicial adjudication that accords with the spirit of law and policy and with the laws of technological development. Explore judicial protection pathways for new types of rights and interests, and continuously strengthen protection of artificial intelligence innovation outcomes, innovating entities, innovative conduct and the innovation environment. Balance the protection of rights and interests against the development of technology and industry with an inclusive and prudent attitude, and foster a favorable environment that encourages exploration and tolerates failure. Regulate in accordance with law monopolies or unfair competition carried out by means of artificial intelligence technology; safeguard in accordance with law equal rights, equal opportunities and equal rules for relevant entities to develop and use artificial intelligence technology; and strengthen equal protection of the rights and interests of small and medium-sized enterprises and other business entities. Through the impartial and efficient trial of cases involving artificial intelligence disputes in accordance with law, actively guide and promote the deep integration of the internet, big data and artificial intelligence with the real economy, help cultivate and strengthen the artificial intelligence industry, and release to the greatest extent the enormous potential of artificial intelligence to empower high-quality economic and social development.
Build a firm security bottom line. Determine legal liability accurately in accordance with law on the basis of the specific harm that artificial intelligence may cause to the lawful rights and interests of civil subjects in different application scenarios, and of the nature and magnitude of the risks. Distinguish the differences in technical principles, risk spillover and control capability among different types of large models — general-purpose and special-purpose, open-source and closed-source — and reasonably allocate legal liability among developers, providers, users and other entities. Fully and accurately implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity: for crimes committed by intentionally using artificial intelligence to endanger national security, infringe citizens’ rights and interests or disrupt social order, punish severely and resolutely in accordance with law; for innovative conduct in the research, development and application of artificial intelligence, handle prudently in accordance with law, adhering to the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and the principle of proportionality between crime, responsibility and punishment.
II. Try AI-Related Tort Cases Properly in Accordance with Law, and Effectively Protect the Lawful Rights and Interests of Civil Subjects
Article 3 — Accurately grasp the principles for attributing liability in AI-related torts. Accurately apply the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Product Quality Law, the Road Traffic Safety Law and other laws, and determine in accordance with law the legal liability arising from the use of artificial intelligence to infringe civil rights and interests. Where the law does not expressly provide for the application of no-fault liability or presumed-fault liability, whether the actor bears tort liability shall be determined under the fault-based liability principle provided in Article 1165, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. In judging whether the actor is at fault and the degree of fault, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the specific scenario of the artificial intelligence application, its degree of autonomy, its technical and informational transparency, its potential risks and scope of impact; the measures taken by artificial intelligence developers, providers and other relevant entities to prevent and reduce artificial intelligence infringement, and the technical feasibility of such measures; the artificial intelligence user’s capacity to foresee and control the harm that may be caused by infringing conduct carried out using artificial intelligence technology; and other factors.
Article 4 — Regulate in accordance with law “AI face-swapping and voice cloning”, “AI resurrection of the deceased” and other uses of generative AI that infringe personality rights and interests. The use of generative artificial intelligence to process the name, likeness or other attributes of a specific natural person or of a deceased person shall not violate laws or regulations and shall not offend public order and good morals. Unless otherwise provided by law, where, without the consent of a natural person, artificial intelligence is used to process that person’s name, likeness or other attributes to generate a virtual digital likeness identifiable as that person, which is then used or made public, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed his or her right to name, right to likeness or other personality rights and interests, the People’s Court shall support the claim in accordance with law. Unless otherwise provided by law, where, without the consent of a natural person, that person’s voice is used as training corpus to imitate his or her timbre, intonation, pronunciation style and the like so as to generate a synthetic voice identifiable as that person, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed his or her voice rights and interests, the People’s Court shall support the claim in accordance with law. Where a generated or synthesized virtual digital likeness or voice identifiable as a specific natural person is manipulated to engage in improper conduct or to make untrue statements, lowering the social evaluation of that natural person or of another, the People’s Court shall find in accordance with law that this constitutes an infringement of the right to reputation. Where artificial intelligence technology is used to produce or use a virtual digital likeness of a deceased person without authorization, so that the deceased’s name, likeness, reputation or the like is infringed, and the deceased’s close relatives request that the actor bear civil liability pursuant to Article 994 of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support the request in accordance with law.
Article 5 — Regulate in accordance with law the use of AI for “online doxxing” (网络开盒), “human-flesh search” (人肉搜索) and other conduct infringing natural persons’ right to privacy. Where, for the purpose of prying into privacy, artificial intelligence is used to track and analyze public information about a specific natural person — such as telephone numbers, online accounts and social-media information — so as to obtain private information, or the private information so obtained is leaked or made public, or the information obtained is used to intrude upon the tranquility of private life, this shall be found to constitute an infringement of the right to privacy. Where artificial intelligence is used to photograph, peep into, eavesdrop on or otherwise intrude upon the private spaces, private activities and the like of a specific natural person, this shall be found to constitute an infringement of the right to privacy, unless otherwise provided by law or the natural person has expressly consented.
Article 6 — Determine in accordance with law civil liability for infringement of personal information rights and interests in the course of AI training. Processing, within a reasonable scope and for the purpose of training an artificial intelligence model, personal information that the individual has disclosed on his or her own initiative or that has otherwise already been lawfully made public, where the individual has not expressly refused, is generally not to be found an act infringing personal information rights and interests. Where there is a major impact on the individual’s rights and interests, the individual’s consent shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of law. In determining the reasonable scope, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the necessity and appropriateness of the purpose of processing the personal information relative to the model’s functions; the type and sensitivity of the personal information involved and its potential impact on the individual’s rights and interests; the context in which the individual made the information public and the scope of use that could reasonably be expected; and other factors.
Article 7 — Prudently determine the tort liability of generative AI service providers. Where content automatically generated by generative artificial intelligence infringes another person’s right to reputation, right to privacy or other personality rights and interests, and, after notice from the rights holder, the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as ceasing to generate the infringing content, it shall bear tort liability in accordance with law for the harm caused. The notice shall include prima facie evidence of infringement and the rights holder’s real identity information. Where a network user maliciously induces generative artificial intelligence to generate infringing content, such as by inputting infringing prompts, and thereby causes harm to another, that network user shall bear tort liability in accordance with law; where, after notice from the rights holder, the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as ceasing to generate the infringing content and blocking the relevant generation instructions, and the rights holder requests pursuant to Article 1195 of the Civil Code that the network user and the generative artificial intelligence service provider bear civil liability, the People’s Court shall support the request in accordance with law.
Article 8 — Apply the personality-rights infringement injunction system in accordance with law. Where a natural person, legal person or unincorporated organization has evidence proving that an actor is using artificial intelligence to commit, or is about to commit, an unlawful act infringing its personality rights and interests, that failure to stop it promptly would cause irreparable harm to its lawful rights and interests, and applies to the People’s Court for measures ordering the actor to cease the relevant conduct or ordering the relevant network service provider or generative artificial intelligence service provider to cease providing the relevant service, the People’s Court may issue a personality-rights infringement injunction in accordance with law. In issuing a personality-rights infringement injunction, the People’s Court shall adopt corresponding injunctive measures in light of the type of personality right infringed, the manner of the unlawful conduct, and the scope and degree of the harm that may be caused, and shall not exceed the necessary limits.
Article 9 — Accurately determine AI product liability. The People’s Court shall, on the basis of the definition of “product” in the Product Quality Law, accurately identify in accordance with law artificial intelligence products that have a physical object as their carrier and apply the corresponding legal rules. Where a defect in an artificial intelligence product causes harm, the producer and the seller shall bear product liability in accordance with law. In determining whether an artificial intelligence product presents an unreasonable danger to personal or property safety, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the nature and use of the artificial intelligence product, its self-learning capability, its upgrades and updates, the degree of user control over the system, whether it complies with relevant national standards and industry standards, and other factors, with particular scrutiny of whether the producer and the seller gave truthful explanations and clear warnings regarding the product’s applicable scenarios, inherent limitations and foreseeable risks.
Article 10 — Regulate in accordance with law “big-data price discrimination” (大数据杀熟), “celebrity-impersonation selling” and other conduct infringing consumers’ lawful rights and interests. Where, for the same goods or services, a business operator uses algorithms to impose unreasonable differential treatment in transaction price or other transaction conditions, infringing another’s lawful rights and interests and causing harm, the People’s Court shall find in accordance with law that it bears corresponding tort liability. In determining whether unreasonable differential treatment is constituted, whether the reasons for the differential treatment are legitimate, sufficient and non-discriminatory shall be considered comprehensively on the basis of whether the differential treatment substantively restricts or harms the consumer’s right to know, right to choose independently, right to fair dealing and the like; whether transaction conditions targeted at the individual were formed on the basis of information such as the consumer’s consumption preferences, willingness to pay, ability to pay and browsing history; and whether it violates the principle of good faith and commercial ethics. Where a business operator, in providing goods or services, uses artificial intelligence to carry out “celebrity-impersonation selling” that constitutes fraud, and the consumer claims punitive damages pursuant to Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the People’s Court shall support the claim in accordance with law.
Article 11 — Determine in accordance with law compensation liability for traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles with assisted-driving functions. Where an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle with assisted-driving functions is driven on the road and a traffic accident causes harm, compensation liability shall be borne in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law. Where a traffic accident causing harm results from a product defect in the vehicle, and a party requests that the producer or seller bear compensation liability under Book VII, Chapter IV of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support the request. Where a defect in a vehicle with assisted-driving functions combines with the driver’s fault to cause the same harm, and a party requests pursuant to Article 1172 of the Civil Code and other provisions that the driver and the vehicle producer or seller both bear compensation liability, the People’s Court shall support the request in accordance with law. Where a vehicle producer or seller makes false or misleading representations regarding the automation level, degree of intelligence, performance, use or the like of an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle with assisted-driving functions, harming consumers’ lawful rights and interests, and the consumer requests pursuant to the Civil Code, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and other laws that the producer or seller bear civil liability, the People’s Court shall support the request in accordance with law. To ascertain the cause of a road traffic accident, the People’s Court may require the party controlling the data (数据控制方) — such as the vehicle producer, seller or operator — to provide, within the necessary scope, truthful and complete autonomous-driving and assisted-driving event records and other data needed to ascertain the facts of the case.
III. Try AI-Related Intellectual Property Disputes Properly in Accordance with Law, and Safeguard High-Quality Development and High-Level Security of AI
Article 12 — Regulate in accordance with law AI-related conduct infringing intellectual property rights. Where content generated by artificial intelligence infringes another’s copyright, the People’s Court shall comprehensively consider the type of artificial intelligence service, the characteristics of the industry, the sources of training data, the degree of participation of each party, the necessary measures taken, the profits obtained and other factors, and reasonably determine in accordance with law the liability of the artificial intelligence developer, provider and user. Where an artificial intelligence developer raises a non-infringement defense, it shall be ordered to provide the sources of the training data, records of the training process, the model’s mode of operation, the scientific theoretical basis and the like as corroboration. Where a rights holder claims that an artificial intelligence provider has used algorithmic technology to infringe its copyright, it shall provide the relevant evidence. Where an artificial intelligence user knows or ought to know that a prior work exists, uses artificial intelligence to generate a work substantially similar to the prior work, and has no reasonable defense, and the rights holder in the prior work requests that the user bear infringement liability, the People’s Court shall support the request. Where artificial intelligence is used to commit infringement and counterfeiting, false advertising, traffic inflation and order brushing (刷量刷单) or similar conduct that infringes another’s rights or constitutes unfair competition, corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with law.
Article 13 — Reasonably determine in accordance with law the legal liability of parties involved in AI-related open-source software. In trying cases involving open-source software, in determining the infringement liability of the developers and providers of open-source software and of subsequent developers and providers, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the type of open-source license, the specific content of the limitations on rights, the security and compliance measures taken, the degree of information disclosure and other factors, and appropriate exemption from liability shall be granted in accordance with law to open-source software developers and providers. Where an open-source software developer or provider supplies, free of charge and on an open-source basis, some of the code modules needed for the research and development of artificial-intelligence-related software and publicly explains their functions and security risks, and another person’s use of those code modules leads to infringement, the People’s Court may find that the open-source software developer or provider does not bear infringement liability.
Article 14 — Regulate in accordance with law patent grant and validity determinations for AI-related inventions. Where an artificial-intelligence-related invention adopts technical means that follow the laws of nature, solves a technical problem, and achieves a technical effect that conforms to the laws of nature, the People’s Court shall find in accordance with law that it is subject matter protected by the Patent Law, except where it violates the law or social morality, harms the public interest, or no natural person has made a substantive contribution. Where an invention is completed by a natural person using artificial intelligence, and that natural person has made a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention, that natural person shall be identified as the inventor. Where the description in an artificial-intelligence-related patent sets out the technical solution to a degree that enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention, it shall be found to satisfy the sufficient-disclosure requirement for grant.
Article 15 — Prudently determine in accordance with law liability for breach of AI-related technology contracts. In trying disputes over contracts for the development, transfer, licensing, consulting or services of artificial intelligence technology, the People’s Court shall, on the basis of the contractual stipulations, give full consideration to the characteristics of artificial intelligence technology research and development, whether the technology developer has made reasonable efforts, and other circumstances, and determine liability for breach in accordance with law.
Article 16 — Regulate in accordance with law AI-related data-use conduct. Where an artificial intelligence developer lawfully obtains data by means of collection and generation, derivative creation, acquisition by transfer, authorization and licensing or the like and enjoys corresponding data rights and interests, the People’s Court shall protect them. Data and data collections that constitute compilation works or otherwise satisfy the constitutive elements of a work shall be protected under the Copyright Law. Data and data collections that constitute trade secrets shall be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. As to data and data collections that do not constitute trade secrets, where the accused infringing conduct violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, liability shall be borne in accordance with law. Where a business operator uses data, algorithms or other technical means to reach a monopoly agreement or to abuse a dominant market position, it shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with law. Where technical means such as fabricating interfering data, maliciously annotating data or adversarial-sample attacks are used to harm the operational security of artificial intelligence, corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with law.
IV. Improve the Procedural Rules for AI-Related Disputes, and Punish in Accordance with Law the Use of Generative AI to Obstruct the Judicial Order and Other Unlawful and Criminal Conduct
Article 17 — Ascertain the facts of AI-related dispute cases accurately in accordance with law. Given the technical and specialized character of cases involving artificial intelligence disputes, the People’s Court shall strengthen litigation guidance and judicial clarification (释明) in accordance with law, guiding the parties to complete the production of evidence promptly and comprehensively around the disputed facts. Where a party is unable to collect evidence on its own for objective reasons, it may apply to the People’s Court to investigate and collect it; where necessary, the People’s Court may investigate and collect evidence on its own motion. Where a party applies for evidence preservation in order to fix key technology, the People’s Court shall examine the application promptly in accordance with law. Where a party controlling documentary evidence, electronic data or other evidence refuses without justification to produce it, and the opposing party asserts that the content of that evidence is unfavorable to the party controlling it, the People’s Court may find that assertion established. For specialized questions involving the technical principles and operating mechanisms of artificial intelligence, the People’s Court shall in accordance with law give full play to the roles of people’s assessors, forensic appraisers, expert assistants and technical investigation officers in assisting the ascertainment of the facts.
Article 18 — Explore and improve the rules for examining evidence in AI-related dispute cases. The People’s Court shall give full consideration to the complexity of artificial intelligence technology, the opacity of system operation and the particular features of evidence collection, and continuously improve evidence-examination rules adapted to the development of new technology. It shall focus its examination on the authenticity and integrity of the generation, collection, storage and transmission of electronic data. For evidence produced by different information technologies such as big data and blockchain, it shall specify differentiated points of focus for evidence examination. For evidence in the form of big-data analysis reports, it shall focus on examining the sources of the original data, the cleaning rules, and the scientific soundness of the analytical methods; for blockchain-preserved evidence, it shall focus on examining the authenticity of the data before it was recorded on-chain and the reliability of the technical platform. Where a party submits artificial-intelligence-generated content as evidence of infringement, the People’s Court shall make its determination by comprehensively considering the design of the prompts and their influence on the generated result, the degree of similarity between the generated content and the work in which rights are claimed, the consistency of repeated tests, and the model training, algorithm design, generated-content filtering mechanisms and other factors.
Article 19 — Regulate in accordance with law the use of AI for improper evidence-gathering and other conduct obstructing the judicial order. Where a party exploits the self-learning and autonomous-decision-making characteristics of artificial intelligence to obtain false evidence through human intervention or misdirection — such as deleting or tampering with AI-generated and composed content labels, inputting specific instructions, selectively presenting results, or adversarial interference — fabricates the basic facts of a civil case, and brings sham litigation in an attempt to harm the interests of the State, the public interest or the lawful rights and interests of others, the People’s Court shall dismiss its claims in accordance with law and impose a fine or detention according to the seriousness of the circumstances; where a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law. Where a litigation participant or another person uses artificial intelligence to fabricate evidence and obstructs the People’s Court’s trial of the case, the matter shall be handled under Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law. Where litigation documents, case-search reports or other materials submitted by a litigation participant were generated using artificial intelligence, the participant shall, before submitting them to the court, carefully verify the authenticity and accuracy of the laws, judicial interpretations, cases and other content involved, shall explain the use of artificial intelligence assistance when submitting them to the court, and shall bear responsibility in accordance with law for the authenticity and accuracy of the content.
Article 20 — Punish in accordance with law criminal activity carried out using AI. Where artificial intelligence is used to commit fraud, insult, defamation, damage to commercial reputation or the reputation of goods, infringement of citizens’ personal information, illegal acquisition of data from computer information systems, or the production, sale or dissemination of obscene materials, and a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law. Where an actor, after activating an assisted-driving function, uses privately installed accessories to evade the assisted-driving system’s monitoring, leading to a road traffic accident, and a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law.
V. Intensify Adjudication Guidance for AI-Related Disputes, and Continuously Improve Working Mechanisms
Article 21 — Give full play to the diversified dispute-resolution mechanism. The People’s Courts shall actively use diversified dispute-resolution mechanisms to properly resolve disputes involving artificial intelligence; promote the establishment of linkage and coordination mechanisms with the competent authorities for the artificial intelligence industry, industry-specific and specialized mediation organizations, artificial intelligence experts and scholars and others, so as to carry out dispute resolution jointly; and make pre-litigation mediation effective. On the basis of the judicial adjudication function, promote a higher rule-of-law standard in the prevention and resolution of disputes involving artificial intelligence; actively clarify rights and obligations and delineate the boundaries of conduct through open trials and case-based explanation of the law; give play to the demonstrative and guiding role of judicial adjudication; and promote the prevention at source and prompt resolution of disputes involving artificial intelligence.
Article 22 — Strengthen adjudication supervision and guidance. Actively and regularly apply elevated jurisdiction (提级管辖), strengthen the demonstrative and guiding role, and make adjudication supervision and guidance effective. Cases involving artificial intelligence disputes that involve major interests, that are difficult, complex and of a new type, that have rule-establishing significance, or that require unified standards for the application of law shall be tried by a higher People’s Court through elevated jurisdiction. Make full use of the People’s Court Case Database, strengthen case-guidance work, and promote the unified application of law and the improvement of artificial intelligence governance rules.
Article 23 — Strengthen inter-departmental collaboration and coordination. Through issuing judicial recommendations, establishing cooperation mechanisms and other means, give full play to the judicial function to serve national and social governance. Strengthen coordination and cooperation with the cyberspace, public security, procuratorial, market-regulation and other departments, and establish and implement long-term comprehensive governance mechanisms. Guide relevant enterprises, platforms, industry associations and others toward standardized self-governance, and promote the formation of a full-chain protective synergy of industry self-discipline, administrative supervision and judicial safeguards in the artificial intelligence sector.
Article 24 — Strengthen international judicial exchange and cooperation. Properly try cases involving artificial intelligence and cross-border data disputes; on the basis of the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, advance exchange and cooperation in foreign-related adjudication in the artificial intelligence field; strengthen the alignment of rules and mutual learning; promote the building of a fairer, more reasonable, more inclusive and open artificial intelligence governance system; and promote and protect the diversity of artificial intelligence ecosystems and of human civilization.
Supreme People’s Court 7 September 2026