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.
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 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; and the unsettled theory behind Case No. 264 is worked through in Two Paths for the ‘Right to Hold Data’.
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
-
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.
-
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
— Not legal advice.