Every brief.
The full run, most recent first.
- § 19 · AI-GOVERNANCE
China's First AI-Ghostwritten 'Seeding Post' Case — a Duty of Care for Generative-AI Providers
China's first unfair-competition case over AI batch-ghostwritten 'seeding posts' (种草笔记 — the staged, first-person product-recommendation notes that drive discovery commerce on Xiaohongshu/RED). On appeal, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ((2025) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 3998) held that the operators of an 'AI writing' tool ('AI写作鹅') that let users one-click-generate fake first-person Xiaohongshu notes — fabricating personal experiences and feelings — committed unfair competition under Article 2 (the general clause) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court built an explicit four-factor duty-of-care test for generative-AI providers (is it generative AI; does it target a specific scenario/another's product as its 'application layer'; is it directional and inducing; is it a paid, for-profit service), citing Articles 4(3), 5(1) and 22 of the Generative AI Services Interim Measures. Because the tool was named after Xiaohongshu, marketed to mass-produce on-brand 'seeding' copy, charged a membership fee, and shipped with no notice or reminder against the foreseeable misuse, the providers were at fault. The appeal court affirmed liability but cut damages from RMB 200,000 to RMB 100,000 on an 'inclusive and prudent' (包容审慎) view of AI, and reversed joint liability for the third defendant that merely hosted the download. DCC OCR'd the full judgment from the source images; this is our case brief for overseas counsel.
- § 20 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Why Upstream Won't Operate Its Data — Control Degradation, Derivative Data, and Irreducible Uncertainty
Part three of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' framework turns to the Right to Operate Data (数据经营权) — the right to provide data externally by transfer, licence, capital contribution, or pledge — and asks a question prior to 'what does operation transfer?': in real conditions, *will* an upstream party operate its data at all? His answer: yes, but narrowly. Control-dependent upstreams (platforms, holders of core user or irreplaceable industrial/training data) tend not to provide open, raw, autonomous access, and shift to controlled use or simply decline. The reason is structural. Once a downstream party is licensed to use data, the derivative data it produces is a *new object*: the upstream's *erga omnes* (对世) control over the raw data does not reach it, leaving the upstream — at most — a contractual claim against one counterparty. Hong then catalogues the uncertainties an upstream faces *ex ante*: some that attribution rules could touch but can't eliminate (qualification of the output, default ownership, good-faith of the processor, measurement of remedy), and some no rule can reach (combinatorial/unforeseeable value, undetectable misuse, the privity-and-insolvency chain, fusion and co-ownership, abstraction leakage into model parameters and learned skills, personal-information exposure, and counterparty hold-up). DCC's read for overseas counsel: this is the rigorous explanation of why Chinese data 'supply' is thin and why sandbox / privacy-computing structures dominate — defining a right does not supply the conditions to exercise it.
- § 21 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
When the 'Right to Use Data' Goes External — Provision, Derivative Data, and the Erosion of Upstream Control
Part two of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework turns to the Right to Use Data (数据使用权). The official definition (国家数据局, Common Data Terms Batch 2) makes the use right an *internal* power — 'I use my own data' to process, aggregate, analyse, and form derivative data — exercised on the premise of *not* providing data externally. So 'granting a use right to a downstream party' is not the use right travelling outward; it is the upstream party exercising its **operation right** to license, while the downstream party acquires a use right. That externalisation flips the downstream's legal position from PIPL **entrusted processor** (委托处理) to **provision** (提供) or **joint processing** — triggering notice and *separate consent* for personal information, and the Network Data Security Regulation's contracting duties. And because a strong use right lets the downstream form **derivative data** (衍生数据) — models, scores, indices, labels — value migrates downstream even though the raw data stays upstream. DCC's read for overseas counsel: in China data deals the use right is real but never self-bounding; whether a partner will grant an open, autonomous use right depends on its business model (control-dependent vs monetisation), and the default structure you should expect is *controlled use* (sandbox, privacy computing, federated modelling), not a clean copy.
- § 22 · DATA-ECONOMY
China Halts Data-Asset ABS: Exchanges Pull the Handbrake on a ¥200 Billion Pipeline
According to reporting by Caixin (财新) and 财联社 circulated on 3–5 June 2026, the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges issued window guidance bringing the entire data-asset ABS (数据资产ABS) business chain to a stop — new filings turned away, approved-but-unissued deals told to pause, even issuance-approved deals told to delay. This halts a category that exploded from roughly 11 issuances raising ~¥4.6bn in 2025 to 21 issuances and ¥15.4bn in the first five months of 2026, with a declared pipeline approaching ¥200bn. The stated trigger is mission drift: pure-data-asset deals are under 2% of the market, while local-government financing vehicles (城投/LGFV) used the loose, fast 'data-asset' label to repackage existing non-standard debt as standardised bonds — data as window-dressing, with no real data cash flow behind it. DCC reads the event, the structural reasons, the three審查 gates the exchanges are expected to harden, and what it means for anyone underwriting, rating, or investing in China data-asset financing.
- § 23 · DATA-ECONOMY
What a 'Data-Asset ABS' Actually Securitises — The Collateral Is Data, the Cash Flow Is Not
The name misleads. A Chinese 'data-asset ABS' (数据资产证券化) is labelled as such when data-pledged collateral exceeds 50% of the asset pool — but the underlying assets that actually generate the repayment cash flow are conventional financial claims: supply-chain receivables, trust-loan beneficiary rights, or finance-lease claims. Data is the collateral, the credit-enhancement, or the pricing-and-monitoring tool — not the cash-flow source. This brief, the second in DCC's data-asset-ABS series, unpacks the mechanism overseas counsel need to price the risk: the four live deal structures (trust-loan, receivables, finance-lease, data-empowerment); the difference between accounting recognition (入表) and legal right-confirmation (确权); and the four legal infirmities that make these deals fragile — unsettled data property rights, the true-sale problem created by data's non-exclusivity, the limits of bankruptcy isolation when asset value depends on the originator's continued operation, and the PIPL/DSL eligibility gates. It reads the flagship deals (平安-如皋, 华鑫-鑫欣, 青岛, 杭州高新金投) for what each actually did.
- § 24 · DATA-ECONOMY
From Collateral to Cash Flow: The 'Secondary Licensing' Model That Would Make Data-Asset ABS Real
If today's data-asset ABS is '1.0' — data as collateral behind a conventional debt claim — then '2.0' is the version where the data's own cash flow (licensing fees, data-service subscriptions) directly repays the securities, upgrading data from credit-enhancement tool to genuine underlying asset. This third brief in DCC's data-asset-ABS series examines the structure most likely to get there: the 'secondary licensing' (二次许可) model borrowed from intellectual-property ABS, in which a holder exclusively licenses data to an originator for an upfront lump sum, then takes a reverse exclusive licence back and pays periodic fees that become the ABS cash flow — ownership never moving. It maps the obstacles (data's non-exclusivity defeats 'exclusive licence' and 'exclusive possession'; PIPL/DSL cap what can be licensed; valuation is immature), the finance-lease-of-data variant, and the early policy encouragement (Anhui's March 2026 measures endorsing reverse-licensing). The irony the June 2026 halt exposed: regulators want real data cash flow — which is exactly what 2.0 promises but cannot yet deliver at scale.