---
title_en: "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the 47th Batch of Guiding Cases (Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267)"
title_zh: "最高人民法院关于发布第47批指导性案例的通知（指导性案例262—267号）"
abbreviation: "SPC Guiding Cases 262–267 (Data Rights)"
hierarchy: "judicial"
issuing_body: "Supreme People's Court"
adopted_date: 2025-08-27
effective_date: 2025-08-28
status: "effective"
source_url: "https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4588.html"
related_laws: ["civil-code-personal-info", "pipl", "anti-unfair-competition-law", "csl", "dsl", "data-foundation-system-opinions", "spc-ai-disputes-opinions", "facial-recognition-judicial-interpretation", "app-necessary-pi-scope-provisions", "app-illegal-pi-collection-identification-method", "gbt-45392-automated-decision-security", "credit-reporting-business-measures", "network-data-security-regulations", "data-property-rights-registration-guide-draft"]
domains: ["data-economy", "personal-information", "enforcement"]
url: https://datacompliancechina.com/laws/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-47th-batch/
summary: "Issued 27 August 2025 as Fa [2025] No. 150 (法〔2025〕150号) and released the following day, this is the Supreme People's Court's first thematic batch of guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests (数据权益). Six cases, Nos. 262–267, spanning unfair competition, tort, personal-information protection and enforcement. Guiding cases sit above 'typical cases' in the SPC's hierarchy: courts at every level 'shall refer to' them (应当参照) when trying similar cases and may cite them in the reasoning section of a judgment. No. 262 (Tech Co. v. Media Co.) holds that a platform has a legally protected operational interest (经营性利益) in the data aggregate it assembles — short videos, user comments, registration information — even where that aggregate is neither a copyright work nor a compilation work, and that scraping it wholesale so as to substantially substitute for the platform's product is unfair competition under AUCL Article 2. No. 263 (Network Co. v. Information Co.) holds the opposite way on linked-account services: where a user authorizes a second platform to pull the user's own data from the first, reading a CAPTCHA to make the link work is a technical means, not obstruction, and the service is lawful. No. 264 (Steel Co. v. E-Commerce Co.) holds that a data processor who lawfully collects enterprise data and compiles it into a price index by a standard-conforming methodology owes no tort liability; non-secret, non-personal, non-trade-secret data should flow freely to prevent 'data barriers'. Nos. 265 and 266 are a deliberate pair on PIPL Article 13(1)(2) 'contractual necessity': No. 265 (Luo v. Tech Co.) finds an English-learning app's forced collection of user-profiling information at the login screen — with no 'skip', no refusal option and no alternative login — to be non-voluntary consent and an infringement; No. 266 (Huang v. Credit Management Co.) finds a credit provider's collection of creditworthiness data for an 'enjoy now, pay later' transit fare service to be contractually necessary, minimally invasive under PIPL Article 6, and properly disclosed. No. 267 (Media Co. v. You) is an enforcement case: delivering a platform account and password is not complete delivery — the enforcement court must also change the real-name verification information, and where the person subject to enforcement will not do so, the applicant may seek a notice of assistance in enforcement directing the platform to make the change. The Court's own Q&A flags that from 15 October 2025 the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law's dedicated data clause, Article 13(3), governs the conduct in Nos. 262 and 263."
---

> **Source: Data Compliance China** — https://datacompliancechina.com/laws/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-47th-batch/ · English rendering and annotations by DCC; the Chinese original governs. Cite as: Data Compliance China, "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the 47th Batch of Guiding Cases (Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267)", https://datacompliancechina.com/laws/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-47th-batch/
**Issued by:** Supreme People's Court.
**Document No.:** Fa [2025] No. 150 (法〔2025〕150号).
**Notice dated 27 August 2025; batch released 28 August 2025.**
**Document type:** Guiding cases (指导性案例) issued by notice — discussed and adopted by the SPC Judicial Committee. Not a judicial interpretation (司法解释).

---

*DCC translation note.* This is the **47th batch of guiding cases** and the
Supreme People's Court's **first thematic batch on judicial protection of data
rights and interests**. DCC translates the issuing notice and all six cases in
full from the text published by the SPC Intellectual Property Court. The
accompanying Q&A given by the head of the Court's Research Office is translated
separately as a [brief](/posts/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-qa/).

Two points of Chinese practice matter for reading these. **First, weight.** A
guiding case is not a "typical case" (典型案例): under the SPC's rules, courts at
every level *shall refer to* (应当参照) a guiding case when trying a similar
case, and may cite it in the reasoning section of the judgment — though not as
the legal basis of the ruling, which remains the statute. The Research Office
makes this contrast explicitly in its Q&A. **Second, the operative part.** What
binds is the *Key Points of the Judgment* (裁判要点) — the numbered rule
statement at the head of each case — and, for the enforcement case, the *Key
Points of the Enforcement* (执行实施要点). The facts and reasoning are published
to show how the rule was reached.

Party names are anonymized in the Chinese original (某科技有限公司, 罗某, and so
on); DCC renders them as short English labels — "Tech Co.", "Luo", "App A" —
kept consistent within each case. Court names, docket numbers and dates are as
published.

Related DCC pages: the Court's 2026 [AI Disputes
Opinions](/laws/spc-ai-disputes-opinions/) route data disputes through the same
three channels used here (copyright, trade secrets, AUCL Article 13); the
underlying policy framework is the
[Data Twenty Articles](/laws/data-foundation-system-opinions/); and the
unsettled theory behind Case No. 264 is worked through in
[Two Paths for the 'Right to Hold Data'](/posts/data-holding-right-two-paths/).

---

## Fa [2025] No. 150

### Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the 47th Batch of Guiding Cases

To the Higher People's Courts of all provinces, autonomous regions and
municipalities directly under the Central Government, the Military Court of the
People's Liberation Army, and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of
the Higher People's Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region:

As discussed and decided by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's
Court, six cases — *Tech Co. v. Media Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute)* and
others (Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267) — are hereby issued as the 47th batch of
guiding cases, for reference in the trial of similar cases.

Supreme People's Court
27 August 2025

---

## Guiding Case No. 262

### Tech Co. v. Media Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** civil / unfair competition / data aggregate / wholesale data copying / operational interest

### Key Points of the Judgment

Where the operational interest (经营性利益) that a network platform operator has
formed in a data aggregate (数据集合) is infringed, the operator may ask the
People's Court for protection in accordance with law. Where data is obtained
without permission and provided to the public in a manner that substantially
substitutes for the platform's product or service, disrupting the order of
market competition and harming the lawful rights and interests of the platform
operator or other rights holders, the People's Court may apply the relevant
provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China
and find that the conduct constitutes unfair competition.

### Basic Facts

Tech Co. operates App A. Media Co. operates App B. Between November 2018 and
May 2019, 50,392 short videos on App B were identical to short videos on App A
and contained code proprietary to App A. Those short videos included 19,079
registered-user nicknames and avatars, of which 15,924 were the same as on App
A; 127 comments matched App A in content, order and punctuation. On examination,
about 40% of the short videos were original and constituted works; the remainder
had some value but lacked originality and were video recordings.

Tech Co. sued on a theory of unfair competition, pleading that Media Co. had,
without permission, directly scraped and copied across the data at issue from
App A and displayed and disseminated it on App B, which constituted unfair
competition. It asked the court to order Media Co. to eliminate the ill effects
and to compensate it for economic losses of RMB 40 million.

Media Co. argued in defense that the short videos at issue fell within the
protection of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, and that Tech
Co. held no rights or interests in short videos uploaded by users themselves to
App A; App B, which Media Co. had developed, was a platform for users to upload
short videos, and its business model was legitimate.

### Judgment

On 31 December 2020 the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing Municipality
rendered civil judgment (2019) Jing 0108 Min Chu No. 35902, ordering Media Co. to
publish a statement in the *China Intellectual Property News* (outside the
gutter) eliminating the ill effects of the unfair competition at issue for Tech
Co., and to compensate Tech Co. for economic losses of RMB 5 million. Media Co.
appealed. On 16 March 2023 the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered
civil judgment (2021) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 1011: appeal dismissed, judgment
affirmed.

### Reasons for the Judgment

There were two issues in dispute: first, what rights or interests Tech Co. held
in the data aggregate formed by pooling short videos, user comments and user
information; second, whether Media Co.'s obtaining and use of the data at issue
constituted unfair competition.

**First, Tech Co. holds an operational interest in the data aggregate at issue.**
The Copyright Law protects original intellectual achievements, and also sound
recordings and video recordings which have some value but lack originality. In
this case the original short videos at issue constituted works and the remaining
short videos constituted video recordings, both protected by the Copyright Law.
But Tech Co., as the aggregator of the data, was not the producer of the short
videos at issue, and its pooling of them merely sorted them into the categories
common on network platforms — "video, livestream, music" and the like — with no
originality in the selection or arrangement, so it did not constitute a
compilation work either. When another party hauls across large volumes of the
short videos pooled on its platform, Tech Co. therefore cannot assert rights or
seek legal remedies under the Copyright Law.

However, the data aggregate at issue was collected and pooled by Tech Co. Beyond
the short videos, it also includes the registration information (nicknames and
avatars) published by users under the user agreement when uploading and using
short videos, and user comments. In short, the data aggregate at issue was
formed by users following the platform's rules and using the technical support
the platform provides, through their interactive relationship with the platform;
it is large in scale and high in commercial value. Tech Co. made substantial
inputs of manpower, materials and capital into the formation and accumulation of
the data aggregate, and through its operations attracted large volumes of user
traffic, so that the aggregate generates additional economic value independent of
any single short video. The operational interest arising from Tech Co.'s
holding, use and operation of the short-video data aggregate should therefore be
protected by law. This does not, of course, affect the rights of the producers of
the short videos under the Copyright Law.

**Second, Media Co.'s obtaining the data without permission and providing it to
the public was sufficient to substantially substitute for the products and
services provided by Tech Co., and constitutes unfair competition in accordance
with law.** In production and business activities, business operators shall
follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness and good faith, and
observe the law and business ethics. Article 2(2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition
Law provides: "Unfair competition as used in this Law means conduct by a business
operator, in production and business activities, that violates the provisions of
this Law, disrupts the order of market competition and harms the lawful rights
and interests of other business operators or of consumers." Article 1 of the
*Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the
Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China*
(Fa Shi [2022] No. 9) provides: "Where a business operator disrupts the order of
market competition and harms the lawful rights and interests of other business
operators or of consumers, and the situation falls outside Chapter II of the
Anti-Unfair Competition Law and outside the Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright
Law and other such provisions, the People's Court may apply Article 2 of the
Anti-Unfair Competition Law in making its finding."

Here, Media Co. without permission scraped and hauled across large volumes of
user information, short videos and user comments from the data aggregate at issue
for use on App B, making the content of App B and App A highly homogeneous, so
that a network user who did not use App A could watch the same content through
App B — substantially substituting for the App A products and services operated
by Tech Co. Media Co.'s scraping and hauling of the data at issue, and its use of
it on App B, therefore harmed Tech Co.'s operational interest.

In sum, Media Co.'s conduct at issue disrupted the order of market competition
and harmed the lawful rights and interests of other business operators and of
consumers. But the conduct does not fall within the types of unfair competition
provided for in Chapter II of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the
operational interest Tech Co. holds in the data aggregate at issue cannot be
protected under the Copyright Law either.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China

---

## Guiding Case No. 263

### Network Co. v. Information Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** civil / unfair competition / data / linked-account service / user authorization

### Key Points of the Judgment

Where a network platform provides users with a linked-account service and, upon
the user's authorization, transfers data the user has obtained on the linked
network platform, thereby making it convenient for the user to process that data
within a reasonable scope, and does not disrupt the order of market competition,
the conduct does not constitute unfair competition.

### Basic Facts

Network Co. operates Website A, which provides job seekers with employment and
career-development opportunities. When individual members complete a résumé they
may set access permissions: they may allow recruiting-enterprise users to search
the résumé, or prohibit anyone — including recruiting-enterprise users — from
searching it. After a recruiting-enterprise user posts a position on Website A,
job seekers may find the position through their individual member account and
submit their résumés to it. Website A also provides recruiting-enterprise users
with a paid résumé-search service: after purchasing the service, the enterprise
user may enter Website A's database and search those résumés that job seekers
have allowed to be searched. Résumés obtained by recruiting-enterprise users
through either route — submissions received and active searching — may be viewed
and downloaded within the member account, or sent to a designated mailbox.
Logging in to Website A requires entering a character CAPTCHA from an image.

Information Co. operates Website B, which mainly provides résumé management,
recruitment management and big-data services. Website B has a "link external
website account" function, which makes it convenient for recruiting-enterprise
users to handle in one place the résumés they have obtained on Website A and
other websites. Using the function requires specific authorization: after the
enterprise user enters its account name and password for Website A or another
site, the system logs in to the linked website automatically, and the user may
choose whether to synchronize the résumés into Website B's recruitment-management
workflow or résumé database.

Network Co. discovered that individual résumés obtained by recruiting-enterprise
users on Website A — through both receiving submissions and active search and
download — could be searched within Website B once the "link external website
account" function had been used. Information Co. responded that after using the
function a recruiting-enterprise user could synchronize résumés only into that
user's own account on Website B, and that other users could not find them in
Website B's pooled résumé database. Network Co. and Information Co. each fixed
the relevant evidence by notarization.

On 23 November 2017 Network Co. sued on a theory of unfair competition, pleading
that Information Co.'s provision of the linked-account service — using the
recruiting-enterprise user's account name and password, bypassing the CAPTCHA
identity-verification mechanism to access the Website A system automatically, and
obtaining, storing and using the résumé data at issue — constituted unfair
competition. It asked the court to order Information Co. to stop the unfair
competition, eliminate the ill effects and compensate it for economic losses of
RMB 5 million.

### Judgment

On 17 May 2019 the Yangpu District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality
rendered civil judgment (2017) Hu 0110 Min Chu No. 25167, dismissing Network
Co.'s claims. Network Co. appealed. On 13 October 2020 the Shanghai Intellectual
Property Court rendered civil judgment (2019) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 263: appeal
dismissed, judgment affirmed.

### Reasons for the Judgment

The issue in dispute was whether Information Co.'s provision of the
linked-account service and its obtaining, storing and use of the résumé data at
issue constituted unfair competition.

**First, the linked-account service is a fairly common service model in
cyberspace.** Specifically, a linked-account service binds together a user's
multiple accounts on different network platforms in order to share data,
permissions or functions, providing a more convenient experience. In the online
recruitment market, for example, there are many information-posting platforms,
and a recruiting enterprise seeking wider access to talent information will
generally register as an enterprise user on several recruitment websites at once.
To make it convenient for such users to manage job-seeker information scattered
across different platforms, some operators use website-linking technology to pool
data from different platforms, so that an enterprise user can link through their
website to its existing platform accounts and handle the pooled information in
"one-stop" fashion. Linked-account functions are likewise widely used in the
email field. Provided that data security, personal information and the public
interest are not harmed, a network user's use of a linked-account function to
transfer data the user holds between different network platforms is lawful and
legitimate conduct.

**Second, Information Co.'s provision of the linked-account service was
legitimate.** Network Co. made substantial investment and contribution to the
data collected and generated on Website A and holds rights and interests
protected by law, but it may not obstruct a recruiting-enterprise user's
reasonable handling — including transfer — of the data that user has collected.
Accordingly, a recruiting-enterprise user may transfer the résumé data it has
collected by paying consideration, by receiving job-seeker submissions and so on,
including by transferring it using a linked account. Moreover, the linked account
at issue did not exceed the job seekers' expectations as to the scope of
processing of their personal information: after using the "link external website
account" function, a recruiting-enterprise user could synchronize résumés only
into that user's own account on Website B, and the job seekers' information could
not be found in Website B's pooled résumé database, so there was no harm to the
job seekers' lawful rights and interests.

**Third, Information Co.'s obtaining, storing and use of Website A résumé data
upon user authorization does not constitute unfair competition.** *One*, the
linked-account service Information Co. provides requires the
recruiting-enterprise user to decide for itself whether to link, whether to
synchronize or store résumés automatically, and to enter for itself its account
name and password for Website A or another site. The linked-account function is
realized entirely according to the user's own wishes and requires the user to
perform the corresponding operations. *Two*, as verified by the technical
investigation officer, Information Co.'s setting a program to read the CAPTCHA
was a technical means used to realize the linked-account function, making it
convenient for a user who has linked accounts to log in without separate
verification; it does not constitute "conduct that obstructs or disrupts the
normal operation of network products or services lawfully provided by other
business operators" under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. *Three*, where a
recruiting-enterprise user uses Website B's linked-account service and chooses to
synchronize résumés, the résumés it obtained on Website A are downloaded to
Website B's servers; this is the necessary result of realizing the linked-account
function. At the same time, résumés synchronized to Website B can be searched and
browsed only within the recruiting-enterprise user's own account and cannot be
obtained by others on Website B. The obtaining and storage of data at issue
therefore likewise does not constitute unfair competition.

In sum, Information Co.'s conduct at issue did not disrupt the order of market
competition, nor did it harm the lawful rights and interests of other business
operators or of consumers, and does not constitute unfair competition.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China

---

## Guiding Case No. 264

### Steel Co. v. E-Commerce Co. (Tort Liability Dispute)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** civil / tort liability / enterprise data / data product / data processor

### Key Points of the Judgment

Where a data processor lawfully collects enterprise data, processes it into a
data product by a compilation methodology conforming to the relevant standards,
and makes reasonable use of it without causing harm to the enterprise's rights
and interests, the People's Court shall not support the enterprise's claim that
the data processor bear tort liability.

### Basic Facts

Steel Co. produces and distributes special steel. It published ex-works prices
each day chiefly in two ways: first, by posting them itself in WeChat groups —
some of which had no admission screening or identity restriction and consisted
mainly of customers, running to over a hundred members, while others consisted of
Steel Co. and its first-tier agents; second, by telling specific customers
directly by telephone.

E-Commerce Co. operates a website and app that publish daily price indices for
various steel products. Its business scope includes internet data services, big
data services and data-processing services, and it is designated a "typical
statistical survey enterprise in the commerce and distribution sector". To gather
steel price information, E-Commerce Co. assembled an information-collection team
and collected ex-works prices, agent prices and contract transaction prices from
steel producers, traders and others by three routes — collection from public
accounts and WeChat groups, telephone enquiry, and disclosure in sales contracts —
while at the same time providing those it surveyed with market-conditions and
market-analysis services. E-Commerce Co. processed the various prices collected
using algorithmic technology, compiled them into price indices, and published
them on the website and app. Its price-index compilation standards were assessed
by the "Shanghai Standard" evaluation committee and the Shanghai Standardization
Association and awarded the "Shanghai Standard" mark certificate. What E-Commerce
Co. publishes is not the raw ex-works price but a price index — that is, the
actual transactable price or price level of a product circulating in the market
within a given region (a composite average price indicator for a class of goods
in a given region over a given period). E-Commerce Co.'s information service
operates on a membership basis.

In 2019 E-Commerce Co. published on its website and app the product names,
prices, rises and falls and other information for Steel Co.'s steel products. In
order to use the data service and promote its brand, Steel Co. signed a
cooperation agreement with E-Commerce Co. on 18 November 2020, under which
E-Commerce Co. would provide Steel Co. with data services and brand promotion and
Steel Co. would pay a service fee; as to the data needed for the service, the
agreement provided that E-Commerce Co. would collect Steel Co.'s price
information in the national market each day and publish it promptly. From 24 May
2021 Steel Co. repeatedly complained that the prices for Steel Co. in the steel
price indices E-Commerce Co. published differed too greatly from the product
prices of other companies in the same region and grade, and demanded that
E-Commerce Co. take the relevant product price data down. On 30 November 2021 the
two sides terminated the cooperation agreement, but E-Commerce Co. continued to
publish the above price data for Steel Co.

Steel Co. sued on a theory of tort liability, pleading that E-Commerce Co. had
collected, processed or fabricated data without its consent; that the collection
and processing were irregular and unfair; and that the data so formed and
published was untrue and infringed its lawful rights and interests. It asked the
court to order E-Commerce Co. to delete immediately all information concerning
Steel Co. from the website and app.

### Judgment

On 24 August 2023 the Baoshan District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality
rendered civil judgment (2023) Hu 0113 Min Chu No. 23152, dismissing Steel Co.'s
claims. Steel Co. appealed. On 19 June 2024 the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate
People's Court rendered civil judgment (2023) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 11028: appeal
dismissed, judgment affirmed.

### Reasons for the Judgment

The issue in dispute was whether E-Commerce Co.'s collection and publication of
the data at issue infringed Steel Co.'s lawful rights and interests.

**First, Steel Co. and E-Commerce Co. hold different data rights and interests.**
Steel Co., as a steel producer, generates a series of price data in the course of
producing and selling steel of various specifications. E-Commerce Co., as a data
processor, collects and pools raw data including the ex-works prices and agent
prices of Steel Co.'s products and, after processing with algorithmic technology,
forms a data product. The rights and interests of the parties involved should be
demarcated appropriately according to the source and generation characteristics
of the data: (1) the ex-works price of a product is data generated by Steel Co.
in the course of operating its main business, and Steel Co. holds rights and
interests including holding and use; but the steel trading market is a fairly
fully competitive market and the ex-works price is already public, so Steel Co.
cannot prohibit others from lawfully and reasonably collecting and using it; (2)
since agent prices are generated in the downstream transaction chain after Steel
Co.'s products leave the factory, and there is no evidence that Steel Co.
participated directly in generating or publishing that data, it is difficult to
find that Steel Co. holds an interest in agent prices that would restrict others
from collecting and using them; (3) under the National Development and Reform
Commission's rules on the administration of price-index conduct, enterprises,
public institutions, associations and other organizations lawfully established
within the People's Republic of China may compile and publish price indices.
E-Commerce Co. may therefore compile and publish steel price indices. Those price
indices are formed by E-Commerce Co. through collecting raw price data and
analyzing it technically, and constitute a data product. In that data product,
E-Commerce Co. holds an operational interest.

**Second, E-Commerce Co.'s collection and processing of the data was
legitimate.** Data information is non-exclusive. Generally, data information that
is not a state secret, personal information or a trade secret should be allowed to
circulate freely and should not be excessively controlled absent statutory
grounds, so as to prevent the formation of "data barriers" and "information
enclosure". Here, the ex-works prices at issue were information circulating
freely in the open market and did not involve trade secrets such as product costs
or processes; collecting and using such information to compile industry price
indices did not violate laws or regulations. Specifically: *one*, Steel Co.
argued that its products' ex-works prices were trade secrets. Under the
Anti-Unfair Competition Law, a trade secret must satisfy three conditions — not
known to the public, of commercial value, and subject to confidentiality
measures. Under Article 4(1)(5) of the *Provisions of the Supreme People's Court
on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases of
Trade Secret Infringement* (Fa Shi [2020] No. 7), where "relevant persons in the
field can obtain the information from other public channels", the People's Court
may find the information to be known to the public. Steel Co. itself published
its products' ex-works prices in WeChat groups of several hundred members with no
admission screening, and did not prohibit group members from passing them on. It
therefore took no effective confidentiality measures, its products' ex-works
prices were already public within a certain range, and they do not meet the "not
known to the public" element of a trade secret. Steel Co.'s claim that the data
at issue constitutes a trade secret therefore cannot be sustained. *Two*, the
purpose of the cooperation agreement between Steel Co. and E-Commerce Co. was to
purchase E-Commerce Co.'s services, not to authorize E-Commerce Co. to collect,
process and use ex-works prices; the contractual relationship at issue was
therefore not a necessary condition for the lawfulness of E-Commerce Co.'s
collection of ex-works prices. *Three*, under the National Development and Reform
Commission's rules on the administration of price-index conduct, E-Commerce Co.
assembled an information-collection team and collected data independently through
collection from public accounts and WeChat groups, telephone enquiry, disclosure
in sales contracts and the like, without using misleading, fraudulent, coercive or
theft-based means; its information sources were lawful.

**Third, there is no evidence that Steel Co.'s data rights and interests were
harmed.** E-Commerce Co.'s legitimate obtaining and reasonable use of the data at
issue did not in fact affect or deprive Steel Co. of its rights and interests of
holding and using the ex-works price data, still less cause Steel Co. economic
loss; E-Commerce Co. therefore did not harm Steel Co.'s data rights and
interests. Of course, if there were evidence that the data quality was defective,
Steel Co. could claim that E-Commerce Co. bear liability including damages. But
there was no evidence in this case of any defect in data quality. E-Commerce Co.
lawfully collected Steel Co.'s price data and its compilation methodology
conformed to the relevant standards, so there was no problem with either the
underlying data or the compilation methodology; Steel Co. asserted that the data
product was untrue, non-objective and unfair, but did not provide sufficient
evidence.

In sum, E-Commerce Co.'s collection and processing of data did not infringe Steel
Co.'s data rights and interests, and on the evidence in the case no defect in the
quality of the data product can be found. Steel Co.'s claim that E-Commerce Co.'s
collection and processing of data to form a data product infringed its lawful
rights and interests is not supported by the People's Court in accordance with
law.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 1165 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 7 of the Data Security Law of the People's Republic of China

---

## Guiding Case No. 265

### Luo v. Tech Co. (Privacy and Personal Information Protection Dispute)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** civil / privacy and personal information protection / collection of user-profiling information / necessary for performance of a contract / automated decision-making

### Key Points of the Judgment

1. In determining whether the processing of personal information is "necessary
for the conclusion or performance of a contract to which the individual is a
party", the determination may be made in light of the provisions of relevant
laws, regulations, rules and normative documents on the scope of necessary
personal information, taking into account the type and content of the contract.
Where the failure to process the information in question would make it impossible
to realize the basic-function services agreed in the contract or the additional
function services independently chosen by the user, the processing may be found
to be necessary for the conclusion or performance of the contract; otherwise, it
shall not be so found.

2. Where the collection of user-profiling information is not necessary for the
provision of a network service, and the website's or software's login and
registration interface collects that information without providing the user with
an alternative login method in the event of refusal to submit it, the user's
consent to provide the personal information is not voluntary; where the user
claims infringement of their personal-information rights and interests, the
People's Court shall support the claim in accordance with law.

### Basic Facts

Tech Co. operates an English-learning website and two apps.

On 15 January 2021, without obtaining Luo's consent, Tech Co. collected two of
Luo's mobile phone numbers through an offline partner experience store, created
an account and password for Luo on the English-learning website at issue, and
sent Luo several related messages.

On 20 January 2021, to find out about the account, Luo entered the mobile number
and password on the login page of the website and the app and clicked to log in.
Several question-and-answer screens then appeared, requiring the user to fill in
"occupation", "learning purpose", "school stage", "English level" and the like;
without completing them the login process could not continue. After completing
them, the user had to fill in a basic personal information screen, entering
mandatory fields such as Chinese and English names, before registration could be
completed. Throughout, there was no "skip" or "refuse" option, and no prompt
seeking authorization or consent for the collection of personal information.

Luo sued on a theory of privacy and personal information protection, pleading
that the website and app at issue had not given notice of any personal
information collection policy, had compulsorily collected Luo's mobile numbers,
user-profiling information and other data and used it beyond scope, infringing
Luo's personal-information rights and interests; and that the website's sending
of marketing text messages without permission disturbed Luo's tranquility of
private life and infringed Luo's right to privacy. To learn how Tech Co. was
processing the personal information, and so determine the scope of deletion, Luo
made a request to consult and copy the personal information; Tech Co. provided
materials in response, but Luo considered that the system screenshots provided
were neither timely enough nor clear enough. Luo asked the court to order Tech
Co. to provide a clear copy of the personal information, cease the infringement,
delete the personal information, apologize publicly and compensate losses of RMB
2,900.

Tech Co. argued in defense that the personal information at issue had been
collected by the offline experience store it partnered with; that it had no
subjective intent to collect or process personal information unlawfully or to
disturb Luo's peace of life; that the services provided by the website and app it
operates require recommending suitable content to users according to their
different needs — that is, pushing information to users by automated
decision-making is the basic-function service of its website and app, so
collecting user-profiling information for automated decision-making is necessary
to provide the service and does not require the individual's consent; and that
Luo filled in the information voluntarily, which in substance amounted to
consenting to the collection through Luo's own affirmative act. Tech Co.'s
collection of Luo's user-profiling information therefore did not constitute
infringement.

### Judgment

On 1 August 2022 the Beijing Internet Court rendered civil judgment (2021) Jing
0491 Min Chu No. 5094, ordering Tech Co. to provide Luo with a clear copy of the
personal information; to cease processing and to delete Luo's personal
information relating to the two mobile numbers in Luo's name and the associated
user-profiling information, account and password information and order
information; and to apologize to Luo in writing and compensate attorney's fees
and evidence-collection costs totalling RMB 2,900. Tech Co. appealed. On 28
November 2022 the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court rendered civil
judgment (2022) Jing 04 Min Zhong No. 494: appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.

### Reasons for the Judgment

The issue in dispute was whether Tech Co.'s collection of user-profiling
information on the ground of pushing information by automated decision-making
fell within the statutory exception to the requirement of the individual's
consent.

Article 1035 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China establishes the
notice-and-consent rule for the processing of personal information and also
provides for statutory exceptions to obtaining the individual's consent. Because
the Civil Code's provisions are relatively general, and because the Personal
Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China had been promulgated
and had come into force during the hearing of this case, and Tech Co. relied on
its provisions in its defense, the court referred to the spirit of the relevant
PIPL provisions. Specifically, Article 13(1)(2) of PIPL provides that processing
"necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract to which the
individual is a party" is a statutory exception to obtaining the individual's
consent. In determining "necessary for the contract", the determination may be
made in light of the provisions of relevant laws, regulations, rules and
normative documents on the scope of necessary personal information, taking into
account the type and content of the contract: if the absence of the information
processing would make it impossible to realize the basic-function services agreed
in the contract or the additional function services independently chosen by the
user, it may be found necessary for the conclusion or performance of the
contract; otherwise, it shall not be so found.

*One, from the relevant industry rules.* The *Provisions on the Scope of
Necessary Personal Information for Common Types of Mobile Internet Applications*
(Guo Xin Ban Mi Zi [2021] No. 14), issued by the Cyberspace Administration of
China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of
Public Security and the State Administration for Market Regulation, expressly
provide that for study and education apps the basic-function services are "online
tutoring, online classrooms and the like" and the necessary personal information
is the registered user's mobile phone number. Taking that as a reference, the app
at issue, as a study and education app, does not have as its basic-function
service the pushing of information to users by automated decision-making. Tech
Co.'s contention that collecting user-profiling information is the foundation of
the service it provides, on the ground that its business model is to push
information by automated decision-making, therefore has no basis. In other words,
user-profiling information is not necessary personal information for the service
provided by the app at issue.

*Two, from the product's function design.* "Necessary for the performance of a
contract" should be confined to basic-function services, or to additional
function services the user has independently added where a choice was available.
Only where the personal information collected is directly connected to the
basic-function services or to additional function services the user has
independently chosen, such that the absence of that personal information would
make the service function impossible to realize, is it "necessary for the
performance of the contract". Here, the basic-function service of the app at
issue was to provide online course video streams and related text, images and
videos; collecting user-profiling information was not necessary for that
basic-function service, and there was no evidence that Luo had ever independently
chosen to use an additional function service. Tech Co.'s basis for collecting
user-profiling information outright on the ground of realizing an
automated-decision-making function service was therefore insufficient, and it does
not constitute the statutory situation in which a user's personal information may
be processed without obtaining the individual's consent. That is, Tech Co. should
have obtained Luo's consent to collect the user-profiling information.

*Three,* Article 16 of PIPL provides: "A personal information handler may not
refuse to provide products or services on the ground that an individual does not
consent to the processing of their personal information or withdraws consent,
except where the processing of personal information is necessary for the
provision of the products or services." When the software at issue required the
user, at the first login screen, to submit occupation type, school stage, English
level and other user-profiling information, it provided no "skip" or "refuse"
option, and no alternative login method in the event of refusal to submit the
information, making submission of the information the only route to logging in.
This product design meant that a user who did not consent to the collection of
the information, wishing to use the software, had no choice but to tick "agree"
and provide it, or else give up using the software altogether. "Consent" to
provide personal information in such circumstances is in fact given
involuntarily; it does not conform to Article 14(1) of PIPL — "Where personal
information is processed on the basis of an individual's consent, that consent
shall be given by the individual voluntarily and explicitly on the premise of full
knowledge" — and does not have the effect of obtaining the individual's consent.

In sum, Tech Co.'s collection of Luo's user-profiling information without consent,
in the absence of any statutory ground exempting it from obtaining consent,
infringed Luo's personal-information rights and interests.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 1035 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Articles 13, 14 and 16 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's
Republic of China

---

## Guiding Case No. 266

### Huang v. Credit Management Co. (Personal Information Protection Dispute)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** civil / personal information protection / enjoy now, pay later / credit service / principle of necessity / least impact

### Key Points of the Judgment

Where an "enjoy now, pay later" (先享后付) function has the activation of a
credit service as a necessary condition, the collection by the relevant credit
service provider of personal information reflecting the user's personal credit or
risk status is "necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract to
which the individual is a party". Where, in order to provide the "enjoy now, pay
later" service, the credit service provider collects the user's credit
information in the manner with the least impact on the individual's rights and
interests and has discharged its duty of notice as to the collection of personal
information, and the user claims that the collection infringes their
personal-information rights and interests, the People's Court shall not support
the claim in accordance with law.

### Basic Facts

On 15 March 2021 Huang discovered that a credit account had been opened without
permission, and on enquiring with customer service at Credit Management Co., the
operator of the credit account, learned that this had resulted from Huang's use
of the "enjoy now, pay later" function when activating a Chongqing public
transport ride code on 7 March 2021. Activating the Chongqing public transport
ride code through the application required clicking "agree to the agreement and
activate", below which blue text stated: "View the *Public Transport Payment
Service Agreement for Chongqing*, the *Service Agreement* and the *User
Authorization Agreement*; authorize the Chongqing public transport ride code to
obtain your name, mobile number and ID number for real-name card issuance." The
*Public Transport Payment Service Agreement for Chongqing* stated that the public
transport payment service is provided jointly by two technology companies
(together, the "Technology Companies"); that where a user meets certain
conditions and cannot pay the fare in time, the Technology Companies will pay the
fare on the user's behalf and acquire the claim to assert and recover the fare
from the user; and that the user must agree to authorize the Technology Companies
to check the user's credit score as a risk-assessment reference for activating and
continuing to provide the payment service. The *Service Agreement* stated that
the user authorizes Credit Management Co. to collect and process information from
information providers lawfully holding the user's personal information, and that
the scope of the information collected may include personal identity information,
transaction information, performance information, device information and other
information capable of assessing and reflecting the user's credit or risk status.
Huang immediately asked Credit Management Co.'s customer service to close the
credit account and delete the personal information; the account was subsequently
cancelled and the personal information deleted.

On 25 March 2021 Huang activated an electronic bus card for Qingyuan City,
Guangdong Province, through the application, and consulted the relevant service
agreements; both the *Public Transport Payment Service Agreement* and the
*Service Agreement* were marked in blue text and could be clicked and read. Their
content was broadly the same as the agreements for activating the Chongqing
public transport ride code. On 25 April 2021 Huang cancelled the credit account.

On 13 October 2021 Huang sued on a theory of personal information protection,
pleading that Credit Management Co. had engaged in misleading and coercive
conduct and had activated the credit service unnecessarily when Huang activated
the ride code and the "enjoy now, pay later" service, and asking the court to
order Credit Management Co. to cease the infringement and compensate the damage.

### Judgment

On 6 April 2022 the Hangzhou Internet Court rendered civil judgment (2021) Zhe
0192 Min Chu No. 8058, dismissing Huang's claims. Neither party appealed and the
judgment has taken legal effect.

### Reasons for the Judgment

The issue in dispute was whether Credit Management Co.'s collection of Huang's
personal information in providing the "enjoy now, pay later" function
constituted infringement.

**One, collecting the personal information at issue was necessary for the "enjoy
now, pay later" contract.** In application scenarios such as electronic bus ride
codes, riding first and paying afterwards — "enjoy now, pay later" — is a service
provided by commercial entities on the basis of the user's choice, a reasonable
use of data carrying personal information, and an innovation in the
commercialization of good-faith mechanisms. Here, the "enjoy now, pay later"
function Credit Management Co. provides can help a third party reduce the risk of
financial loss from a user's failure to pay the fare, by prompting repayment by
users who have not paid. In that process the credit service performs three main
functions: (1) Credit Management Co., on the basis of the credit-evaluation system
it operates, provides the bus company and the Technology Companies with the
user's credit and risk status; (2) Credit Management Co. receives the user's ride
order information and payment status pushed in synchronization by the bus company
and the Technology Companies, further accumulating order information and
analyzing the user's capacity to perform; (3) the bus company and the Technology
Companies push repayment messages to non-performing users through the credit
service. Because the "enjoy now, pay later" function involves a third-party
platform advancing funds, the third-party platform plainly needs to assess the
user's credit status before the service and decide on that basis whether to
provide it, so as to secure realization of its claim.

Because the Civil Code's provisions on the processing of personal information are
relatively general, and because PIPL had been promulgated and had come into force
during the hearing of this case, the court referred to the spirit of the relevant
PIPL provisions. Under Article 13(1) of PIPL, processing "necessary for the
conclusion or performance of a contract to which the individual is a party" is one
of the situations in which personal information may be processed. As set out
above, collecting the relevant information plainly was necessary for the
conclusion and performance of the contract and in fact need not have required the
individual's consent; yet the bus company, the Technology Companies and Credit
Management Co. nonetheless collected the information by obtaining the user's prior
consent, safeguarding the user's rights and interests to the greatest extent.

**Two, the collection of the personal information at issue discharged the
statutory duty of notice.** Under PIPL's notice-and-consent rule, a personal
information handler must still discharge the duty of notice even where it does not
need to obtain the individual's consent for the processing activity. Here, the
electronic bus card at issue was launched jointly by the bus company, the
Technology Companies and Credit Management Co., and Huang was required to consult
the agreements before applying. In that process, the relevant agreements were all
placed in a conspicuous position and drew the user's attention in a manner
distinct from the black text elsewhere on the page; and within the contract text,
the clauses on the processing of personal information used clear markings —
bolding, enlarged font, blue colouring — sufficient to draw the user's attention.
Huang's contention that Credit Management Co. misled Huang into activating the
credit service therefore cannot be sustained.

**Three, there was no misleading or coercion in the collection of the personal
information at issue.** Huang argued that the credit service was bundled onto the
electronic ride code and that Huang was forced to activate it, in breach of
Article 9 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of
Consumer Rights and Interests on a consumer's autonomous decision whether to
purchase a service. Huang as a consumer does indeed enjoy the right of autonomous
choice: Huang could ride by paying cash into the fare box, could choose a physical
bus card, and could of course choose the electronic bus card at issue. Here, the
bus company did not force Huang to use the electronic bus card. At the same time,
the *Electronic Bus Card Service Agreement* expressly informed users that if they
no longer wished to use the service they could apply on the electronic bus card
service page to return the card or stop using the service; the *Service Agreement*
likewise expressly informed users that they had the right to close the
authorization through the "My — Credit — Credit Management — Authorization
Management" route in the application. Both the bus company and Credit Management
Co. therefore gave users a corresponding right to choose services autonomously,
and users could also terminate the authorized use of their personal information by
a fairly convenient route.

**Four, the collection of the personal information at issue conforms to the
principle of minimum necessity.** Article 6 of PIPL provides: "The processing of
personal information shall have a clear and reasonable purpose, shall be directly
related to that purpose, and shall be carried out in the manner with the least
impact on individual rights and interests. The collection of personal information
shall be limited to the minimum scope for achieving the processing purpose, and
personal information shall not be excessively collected." Here, the credit service
assessed the user's creditworthiness in advance and provided the bus company only
with conclusory "admit or not" information, which is necessary to realize the
"enjoy now, pay later" function and conforms to the principle of minimum
necessity.

In sum, Credit Management Co.'s processing of Huang's personal information did not
violate the law and does not constitute an infringement of Huang's
personal-information rights and interests.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 1035 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the People's
Republic of China

---

## Guiding Case No. 267

### Media Co. v. You (Enforcement Case)

*(Discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court; released 28 August 2025)*

**Keywords:** enforcement / enforcement implementation / network platform account / delivery of account and password / change of real-name verification information

### Key Points of the Enforcement

In the enforcement of the delivery of a network platform account and password,
full account should be taken of the characteristics of network platform accounts
and, in accordance with the real-name verification and other requirements imposed
by law, the relevant real-name verification information should be changed in
accordance with law at the same time as the account and password are delivered.
Where the person subject to enforcement does not perform that obligation, the
enforcement applicant may apply to the enforcement court to issue a notice of
assistance in enforcement requiring the relevant network platform to change the
real-name verification information.

### Basic Facts

Media Co. sued on a theory of unfair competition, asking the court to confirm
that the platform account named "Lang X Xian" belonged to Media Co., to order You
and others to deliver the account and password to Media Co., and to order You and
others to cease the unfair competition and compensate economic losses of RMB 6.18
million. On 29 June 2022 the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court rendered
civil judgment (2020) Yu 01 Min Chu No. 1035, confirming that the platform account
named "Lang X Xian" belonged to Media Co. and ordering You to deliver that
platform account and password to Media Co. within three days after the judgment
took effect, and dismissing Media Co.'s other claims, including for compensation
of RMB 6.18 million. Media Co. appealed. On 26 December 2022 the Higher People's
Court of Chongqing Municipality rendered civil judgment (2022) Yu Min Zhong No.
859: appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.

After that judgment took effect, You failed to perform the obligations determined
by the effective legal instrument, and Media Co. applied to the Chongqing No. 1
Intermediate People's Court for compulsory enforcement. Media Co. asked the
enforcement court to issue notices of assistance in enforcement to the platform's
operating service provider and others, requiring those companies to assist in
clearing the original real-name verification information from the account at
issue, re-verifying it to Media Co.'s identity information and re-binding it to a
mobile number designated by the company. It was further established that You had
been detained from 18 September 2022 in connection with a criminal case and was
subsequently sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for the crime of
misappropriation of funds by an employee.

On 24 March 2023 the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court issued
enforcement ruling (2023) Yu 01 Zhi No. 164, removing You's real-name verification
information from the platform account named "Lang X Xian" and unbinding the mobile
number originally bound to the account and re-binding it to a mobile number
designated by Media Co. After the ruling took effect, and in accordance with the
enforcement ruling and the notice of assistance in enforcement, the network
platform operating company assisted Media Co. in completing the changes to the
account's login password, real-name verification information and registered mobile
number.

### Enforcement Outcome

On 27 April 2023 the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court issued case
closure notice (2023) Yu 01 Zhi No. 164; enforcement in the case was completed.

### Reasons for the Enforcement

The issue in dispute at the trial stage concerned ownership of the account at
issue. The effective judgment found that the rights in the account belonged to
Media Co., and the operative part specified delivery of the account and password.
According to the facts found and the reasons given in the judgment, the account at
issue was registered at Media Co.'s decision; because an enterprise applying to
register an account must first use a mobile number to register for verification,
Media Co. had You, then the company's legal representative, register using You's
mobile number, and You managed the account on the company's behalf. Under the
effective judgment's confirmation of the content of the delivery of rights in the
account, the delivery should be of all of the account's user permissions, rights
and interests, in full, to Media Co. The key to delivering the account and
password at issue is therefore that Media Co. exercise the rights in the account,
achieving lawful possession and independent control of it and operating, using and
managing it.

Network platform accounts depend heavily on real-name verification and registered
mobile number verification, including the real-name information of the registered
identity and the mobile number. If those complete elements are lacking and only
the account and password are held, a person holding the registration information
can still reset the account and password using the registered real-name
information and mobile number, affecting the lawful rights holder's rights of
possession, control and disposition over the account. Here, if You delivered only
the login account and password without clearing You's real-name information and
changing the mobile number, Media Co. could log in with the password and use and
manage the account, but You could still reset the account and password through
You's identity information and mobile number, and Media Co. would also find it
difficult to carry out account management, back-end operation, data migration and
similar matters for lack of the registered user identity and mobile number
verification. Delivery of the account and password alone therefore cannot make the
rights in the account belong fully to Media Co. Moreover, if another person were
to use the account unlawfully to engage in illegal activity, verifying the
identity of the actor would become difficult, harming the public interest. The
core content of the delivery of the account at issue should therefore be the
change to Media Co.'s registered user identity and mobile number.

Article 24(1) of the Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China provides:
"Where a network operator handles network access or domain-name registration
services for users, handles fixed-line or mobile telephone network access
procedures, or provides users with information-publishing, instant-messaging or
similar services, it shall, when signing an agreement with the user or confirming
the provision of services, require the user to provide true identity information.
Where a user does not provide true identity information, the network operator
shall not provide the user with the relevant services." Ordinarily, changing the
subject information of a network platform account should follow the relevant
rules, going through the procedures of applying to the platform, the platform
carrying out verification, and publicizing the change of subject information.
However, You objectively faced an impediment to performance. The enforcement
court therefore, on the application of the enforcement applicant Media Co.,
completed the change of the real-name identity information and other details of
the account at issue by notifying the relevant platform to assist in enforcement.

### Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 24 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (the
provision applied in this case was Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Law as
amended in 2021)

---

**Source:** 最高人民法院 (Supreme People's Court), 《最高人民法院关于发布第47批指导性案例的通知》
(法〔2025〕150号) and Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267, published 28 August 2025 via
最高人民法院知识产权法庭 (SPC Intellectual Property Court).
[Original](https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4588.html)

— Not legal advice.