---
title: "Fa Fa [2026] No. 10: How the Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Adjudication Rules for AI Disputes"
author: "DCC Editorial"
published: 2026-09-08T02:30:00.000Z
url: https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-24-articles/
description: "On 7 September 2026 the Supreme People's Court released the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见), document number Fa Fa [2026] No. 10 (法发〔2026〕10号) — the first adjudication-rules document on AI from China's highest court. This brief translates the Court's own release note in full: the drafting background (the April 2025 Politburo study session, the 15th Five-Year Plan's call for rules on AI-generated output, the State Council's IP plan), the four drafting considerations (including the Court's statement that China has no dedicated AI law, so the Opinions work through the Civil Code, PIPL, Copyright Law, AUCL, Consumer Protection Law and Civil Procedure Law), and the part-by-part summary of the 24 articles. DCC then maps every article for overseas counsel — the fault-based default under Civil Code Art. 1165(1); the Article 4 rules on AI face-swapping, voice cloning and 'AI resurrection'; the Article 5 doxxing rule; Article 6 on training with lawfully public personal information; Article 7's notice-and-takedown rule for generative-AI providers; Article 8 injunctions; Article 9's physical-carrier limit on 'AI product'; Article 10 on algorithmic price discrimination and celebrity-impersonation fraud; Article 11 on autonomous and assisted driving; the IP articles 12–16 (training-data disclosure by developers, open-source exemption, AI-assisted inventions, technology contracts, data use under copyright, trade secrets and AUCL Art. 13); the procedure articles 17–20 (adverse inference, evidence review of AI output, sanctions for AI-fabricated evidence, the duty to verify and disclose AI-generated filings); and the working-mechanism articles 21–24 — and explains what a 法发 document is and is not."
tags: ["spc", "supreme-peoples-court", "ai-disputes-opinions", "fa-fa-2026-10", "generative-ai", "tort-liability", "personality-rights", "deepfake", "doxxing", "product-liability", "autonomous-driving", "ai-copyright", "open-source", "civil-procedure", "judicial"]
laws_cited: ["spc-ai-disputes-opinions", "civil-code-personal-info", "pipl", "genai-services-interim-measures", "anti-unfair-competition-law", "ai-content-labeling-measures", "deep-synthesis-provisions"]
domains: ["ai-governance", "personal-information", "enforcement"]
account: "supreme-peoples-court"
original_title: "最高法发布《关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见》"
original_author: "最高人民法院新闻局 (Supreme People's Court Press Bureau)"
original_publication: "最高人民法院 (Supreme People's Court) WeChat Official Account"
original_url: "https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/1wwUS-nT6veViuSp47YKkw"
source_language: "zh"
---

> **Source: Data Compliance China** — https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-24-articles/ · China data law, translated and annotated for overseas counsel. Cite as: Data Compliance China, "Fa Fa [2026] No. 10: How the Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Adjudication Rules for AI Disputes", https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-24-articles/
> *Editor's Note — DCC.*
>
> On **7 September 2026** the **Supreme People's Court (最高人民法院, SPC)**
> held a press conference to release the **Opinions of the Supreme People's
> Court on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in
> Accordance with Law (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见)**,
> document number **Fa Fa [2026] No. 10 (法发〔2026〕10号)**. Vice President
> **Tao Kaiyuan (陶凯元)** presented the document; Research Office director
> **Zhou Jiahai (周加海)**, Civil Division No. 3 chief judge **Li Jian (李剑)**
> and Research Office deputy director **Si Yanli (司艳丽)** took questions;
> spokesperson **Ji Zhongbiao (姬忠彪)** moderated. The same day the Court's
> official WeChat channel published a release note — drafting background,
> drafting considerations, and a part-by-part summary — followed by the full
> text. This brief translates the release note and adds DCC's map of the
> 24 articles. DCC has published this instrument as three pages: the
> **full English text** is on the [law page](/laws/spc-ai-disputes-opinions/);
> the **press-conference Q&A** is translated
> [separately](/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-press-conference-qa/); this
> brief is the Court's own framing. For the instrument drawn as diagrams —
> the spine, the fault default, the notice flow, the product boundary and
> who answers for what — see the
> [one-page visual reader](/resources/spc-ai-opinions-at-a-glance/).
>
> **What kind of instrument this is.** A 法发-numbered "Opinions" is a
> judicial policy document (司法文件), not a judicial interpretation
> (司法解释, the 法释 series). The difference matters to anyone reading a
> Chinese judgment: a judicial interpretation is cited as the legal basis of
> a ruling; a 法发 document supports the court's reasoning but the judgment
> cites the underlying statute. Inside the court system it is nonetheless
> binding guidance, and Article 22 tells higher courts to pull novel AI cases
> up for trial themselves — so this is the line trial courts will follow.
> The Court is candid that **China has no dedicated AI law** and that the
> Opinions therefore work entirely through existing statutes: the Civil Code,
> the Cybersecurity Law, the Data Security Law, the Copyright Law, the
> Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), the Consumer Protection Law, PIPL and
> the Civil Procedure Law, plus the Product Quality Law, the Road Traffic
> Safety Law and the Patent Law inside the articles.
>
> **Why it matters for a foreign company.** Eight rules do most of the work.
> The default for AI torts is **fault-based liability**, not strict liability
> (Art. 3). **"AI product"** means a product with a physical carrier — a robot
> or a car, not a chatbot (Art. 9). The Civil Code Article 1195
> **notice-and-takedown rule now reaches generative-AI providers**, including
> where a user prompted the infringing output (Art. 7). **Training on
> lawfully public personal information** within a reasonable scope is
> generally not an infringement, unless the individual expressly refused or
> the impact on them is major (Art. 6). Unconsented **AI likenesses and cloned
> voices** are personality-rights infringements, and the rule extends to the
> deceased (Art. 4). **Algorithmic price discrimination** is a tort, and
> AI-driven celebrity-impersonation selling is a punitive-damages fraud
> (Art. 10). A developer raising a **non-infringement defense in an AI
> copyright case must disclose training-data sources, training records and
> the model's operating mode** (Art. 12). And anyone filing **AI-generated
> pleadings or case-search reports must verify them and disclose the AI use**
> (Art. 19). Two questions are deliberately left blank — the copyrightability
> of AI output, and whether unlicensed training on protected works is
> infringement — which the Court says it will revisit as consensus forms.
>
> The translation below is DCC's. Party-political framing is rendered as
> written; it is part of how the Court explains itself.

## The Court's release note

On 7 September 2026, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference for
the *Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases Involving
Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law*. SPC Vice President
Tao Kaiyuan, Research Office Director Zhou Jiahai, Civil Division No. 3 Chief
Judge Li Jian and Research Office Deputy Director Si Yanli attended and
answered reporters' questions. The press conference was moderated by SPC
spokesperson Ji Zhongbiao. At the press conference, Vice President Tao
Kaiyuan released the Opinions.

On 7 September the Supreme People's Court publicly released the Opinions
(hereinafter "the Opinions"). This is an important measure by which the
Supreme People's Court studies and implements Xi Jinping Thought on
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, fully implements Xi
Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, conscientiously implements General
Secretary Xi Jinping's important thinking on building China into a cyber
power, fully implements the spirit of the 20th Party Congress and the plenary
sessions of the 20th Central Committee, and serves and safeguards the
accelerated development of new quality productive forces through
high-quality judicial work. The drafting background, drafting principles and
main contents of the Opinions are briefly introduced below.

### I. Drafting background

At present, global innovation in artificial intelligence technology has
entered an unprecedentedly active period. Intelligent technologies of
ubiquitous connection and human–machine collaboration are compounding and
releasing enormous energy, holding great opportunities while also facing
governance challenges. In recent years the Party Central Committee with
Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has attached great importance to the healthy
development of artificial intelligence. In April 2025, at the 20th group
study session of the Political Bureau of the 20th Central Committee, General
Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must grasp the trends and laws of AI
development, step up the formulation and improvement of relevant laws and
regulations, policies and systems, application norms and ethical guidelines,
build systems for technical monitoring, risk early-warning and emergency
response, and ensure that AI is safe, reliable and controllable." The
Outline of the 15th Five-Year Plan again stresses improving laws and
regulations, policies and systems, application norms and ethical guidelines
in the AI field, and exploring the establishment of rules on the ownership
of rights in AI-generated output and on the rights and responsibilities of
developers, operators and users. The *15th Five-Year Plan for the Protection
and Utilization of Intellectual Property* recently issued by the State
Council proposes improving the intellectual-property protection rules
relating to algorithms, AI-generated output and the development of the
platform economy, and implementing a program of mutual empowerment between
intellectual property and AI.

How the judiciary should fully perform its functions, promote the healthy
development of AI, serve national and social governance, and safeguard
high-quality economic and social development is the question of the times
facing the People's Courts — a question that must be answered. To thoroughly
implement the Party Central Committee's series of major decisions and
arrangements on AI development and governance, the Supreme People's Court
formulated these Opinions on the basis of a careful summary of adjudication
experience, after extensively soliciting comments and conducting in-depth
research and argumentation. The Opinions are problem-oriented and
value-oriented; they focus on the prominent issues in AI-related adjudication
that attract broad public attention, grasp the laws of judicial work amid
rapid technological change, and support the innovative development of AI
technology while drawing the legal "red lines" — so that the thousand-li
horse of AI runs both fast and steady.

The Opinions are the first adjudication-rules document on AI issued by the
nation's highest judicial organ, and a contribution of "Chinese judicial
wisdom" to the healthy and beneficial development of AI worldwide. In
drafting, the Opinions received strong support and help from the relevant
central bodies, representatives of the AI industry, experts and scholars,
and other sectors of society; they are both a summary of adjudication
experience and a distillation of the wisdom of all sectors.

### II. Main considerations

**First, resolutely implement the Party Central Committee's decisions and
arrangements, and serve and safeguard the in-depth implementation of the
innovation-driven development strategy.** By formulating an AI
adjudication-rules document, the Opinions translate the spirit of General
Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions on AI, and the Party Central
Committee's requirements on strengthening AI development and governance,
into concrete practice. The Opinions strengthen judicial protection of AI
innovation outcomes, innovating entities, innovative conduct and the
innovation environment; delineate scientific and reasonable boundaries of
conduct with clear rights and responsibilities; draw the legal "red lines"
and bottom lines; promote technological exploration and industrial
innovation through impartial and efficient adjudication; and release to the
greatest extent AI's enormous potential to empower high-quality economic
and social development.

**Second, strictly follow the spirit of the legislation, and ensure the
uniform and correct application of law.** AI is a new technology and
AI-related legal issues are new issues; China has not yet enacted a
dedicated AI law. Accordingly, following the principle of adapting to the
times and making full and good use of existing legal provisions, the
Opinions draw on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the
Cybersecurity Law, the Copyright Law, the Personal Information Protection
Law, the Civil Procedure Law and other laws to put forward conceptual and
rule-based guidance for handling AI-related disputes in accordance with law
— for example, clarifying the principles for attributing liability in
AI-related tort cases, whether the use of already-public personal
information in model training constitutes infringement, the definition of
an AI product and the determination of defects, legal liability involving
open-source software, and the patentability of AI-related inventions.

**Third, coordinate development and security, and adhere to a
people-centered approach and AI for good.** The Opinions respect the laws of
scientific and technological innovation and the development practice of the
AI industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and
industrial innovation through adjudication rules that accord with the
spirit of law and policy and with the laws of technological development.
Legal liability is determined accurately in accordance with law on the basis
of the harm AI may cause in different application scenarios and the nature
and magnitude of the risk. The Opinions respond properly to the rule
conflicts, social risks and ethical challenges brought by the development of
AI technology, attach importance to preventing and eliminating algorithmic
discrimination, and prevent and regulate the abuse of AI technology that
infringes the people's lawful rights and interests. They give play to the
guiding role of adjudication, actively steer AI toward enhancing the
people's well-being, and strengthen judicial protection of civil rights and
interests in the digital era.

**Fourth, remain problem-oriented and scenario-based, and enhance the
document's targeting and practical effect.** Grounded in the adjudicative
function, the Opinions focus precisely on the issues of broad public concern
— "AI face-swapping and voice cloning", "AI hallucination" torts, "online
doxxing", "big-data price discrimination", autonomous driving, model
training — and set out targeted substantive and procedural rules for
AI-related disputes. Issues on which consensus is currently difficult to
reach are deliberately left blank, to be clarified in an appropriate manner
once further experience has accumulated and conditions are ripe.

### III. Main contents

The Opinions consist of five parts and 24 articles. The main contents are:

**First, they specifically set out the guiding ideology and basic principles
for trying AI-related disputes.** General Secretary Xi Jinping's important
statements on AI provide the fundamental guide for the People's Courts in
trying AI-related disputes and setting adjudication rules. Part I
(Articles 1 and 2) sets out the guiding ideology to be upheld and proposes
three basic principles — a people-centered approach, support for innovation
and development, and a firm security line — ensuring that adjudication of
AI-related disputes always keeps the correct political direction and
effectively implements the requirements of equal emphasis on development
and security, and of combining the promotion of innovation with governance
in accordance with law.

**Second, they regulate in accordance with law infringing conduct that uses
AI.** Part II (Articles 3–11) first clarifies the principles for attributing
AI-related tort liability, and then addresses the determination and bearing
of tort liability in different scenarios — the use of AI to infringe
personality rights, personal-information rights and interests, and consumer
rights and interests. It also clarifies the tort liability of generative-AI
service providers, AI product liability, and compensation liability for
traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles with
assisted-driving functions.

**Third, they provide for trying AI-related intellectual-property disputes
in accordance with law.** Part III (Articles 12–16) makes special provision
for AI-related intellectual-property cases in five respects — determination
of infringement liability, legal liability involving open-source software,
patent grant and validity, performance of technology contracts, and norms
for data use — actively responding to the new topics and challenges that
rapid AI development brings to judicial IP protection, seeking a balance
between encouraging AI innovation and safeguarding rights holders' lawful
interests, and providing clear adjudication rules for the high-quality
development and high-level security of AI.

**Fourth, they explore and improve procedural rules and punish unlawful and
criminal conduct in accordance with law.** Part IV (Articles 17–20) covers
two matters. On the one hand, given the technical and specialized character
of AI-related disputes, it explores and improves the rules for fact-finding
and evidence review, and clarifies the regulation of conduct obstructing the
judicial order, such as improper AI-assisted evidence-gathering and the
submission of false materials. On the other hand, it lays down principles
for punishing in accordance with law the various crimes committed using AI.

**Fifth, they improve the mechanisms for trying AI-related disputes.** The
Opinions cannot cover every type of AI case; many questions require further
exploration and accumulation in judicial practice, and AI governance is a
systemic project that requires coordination among all parties and multiple
measures. Part V (Articles 21–24) accordingly provides for the prevention
and resolution of AI-related disputes, strengthened research and
argumentation, case guidance and adjudication supervision, inter-departmental
collaboration, and international judicial exchange and cooperation.

In his keynote speech at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference
and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance, General Secretary Xi Jinping
stressed: "The faster AI technology develops, the more correctly its
direction — upward, toward good, for the benefit of humanity — must be
anchored, the more precisely the scale of regulation and governance must be
grasped, and the more promptly the measures to prevent loss of control must
be improved." Going forward, the Supreme People's Court will continue to
implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, remain people-centered,
take the issuance and implementation of the Opinions as an opportunity,
persistently do a good job in trying AI-related disputes, give full play to
the normative and guiding role of adjudication, promote AI that is upward,
good and beneficial to humanity, and provide strong judicial services and
safeguards for comprehensively advancing the building of a strong country
and national rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernization.

## DCC's map of the 24 articles

The Court's summary above is accurate but general. This is what each
article actually does, with the statutory hook and the DCC coverage it
connects to. Article numbers follow the SPC's press usage; the full text is
on the [law page](/laws/spc-ai-disputes-opinions/).

### Part I — General requirements (Arts. 1–2)

- **Art. 1** is the guiding ideology. **Art. 2** states the three principles,
  and buries three operative signals inside them: courts are to protect the
  individual's **right to know and right to choose in automated
  decision-making** (the PIPL Article 24 vocabulary); to **distinguish
  general-purpose from special-purpose and open-source from closed-source
  models** when allocating liability among developers, providers and users;
  and to apply the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity — hard
  on intentional misuse, cautious on innovative conduct.

### Part II — Torts (Arts. 3–11)

- **Art. 3 — Fault is the default.** Unless a statute expressly imposes
  no-fault or presumed-fault liability, AI torts are decided under Civil Code
  **Art. 1165(1)**. The fault factors are the ones that will matter in
  practice: application scenario, degree of autonomy, transparency, the
  preventive measures a developer or provider took and their technical
  feasibility, and the user's capacity to foresee and control harm. Cheng
  Xiao's analysis of [which statutory duties actually ground
  fault](/posts/genai-provider-fault-statutory-duties/) is the closest
  reading of how those factors will be applied.
- **Art. 4 — Likeness, voice, reputation, the deceased.** An unconsented
  AI-generated **virtual digital likeness** identifiable as a person, used or
  published, infringes the rights to name and likeness; a voice used as
  **training corpus** to clone timbre, intonation and pronunciation infringes
  the voice right (Civil Code Art. 1023); manipulating either to make untrue
  statements that lower social evaluation is defamation; and close relatives
  may sue over a deceased person's likeness under Civil Code **Art. 994**. This
  is the civil-liability layer beneath the administrative rules in the
  [Deep Synthesis Provisions](/laws/deep-synthesis-provisions/) and the
  [AI Anthropomorphic Interaction Measures](/laws/ai-anthropomorphic-interaction-measures/).
- **Art. 5 — Doxxing.** Using AI to track and analyze a person's public
  information (phone numbers, accounts, social media) in order to extract
  private information, or to leak it, or to disturb the tranquility of their
  private life, is a privacy tort; so is AI-enabled surveillance of private
  spaces. Note the mechanism: aggregation of *public* data with intent to pry
  is itself the infringement.
- **Art. 6 — Training on public personal information.** Processing personal
  information the individual has self-disclosed or that is otherwise lawfully
  public, within a reasonable scope, for model training, is "generally not"
  an infringement if the individual has not expressly refused — but consent
  is required where the impact on the individual is major. The reasonable-scope
  test weighs purpose against model function, the type and sensitivity of the
  information, and the context and reasonably expected use at the time of
  disclosure. This tracks PIPL Art. 27 and Civil Code Art. 1036 and is the
  first time the top court has said so for training. Pair it with the
  training-data security standard
  [GB/T 45652](/laws/gbt-45652-genai-training-data-security/).
- **Art. 7 — Notice-and-takedown for generative AI.** Where automatically
  generated content infringes personality rights and the provider fails to act
  promptly after notice (stop generating, block the prompt), it is liable for
  the harm. The **notice must carry prima facie evidence and the rights
  holder's real identity**. Where a user maliciously induced the output, the
  user is liable, and the provider is jointly reachable under Civil Code
  **Art. 1195** if it ignored the notice. This is the rule the Hangzhou
  Internet Court reasoned toward in China's [first AI-hallucination
  judgment](/posts/ai-hallucination-tort-genai-service-not-product/).
- **Art. 8 — Injunctions.** A personality-rights infringement injunction
  (Civil Code Art. 997) may issue not only against the actor but against a
  network service provider or generative-AI provider, ordering it to stop the
  service — proportionately.
- **Art. 9 — "AI product" means a physical thing.** Product liability under
  the Product Quality Law applies to AI products with a **physical carrier**;
  the defect analysis weighs self-learning capability, updates, the degree of
  user control, and compliance with national and industry standards, with
  particular scrutiny of whether the producer gave truthful explanations and
  clear warnings of scenarios, limitations and foreseeable risks. Software
  services are outside. Again the Hangzhou court got there first.
- **Art. 10 — Consumers.** Algorithmic **unreasonable differential treatment**
  on price or other terms for the same goods or services is a tort, judged by
  substantive harm to the rights to know, choose and deal fairly, by whether
  the terms were built from the consumer's preferences, willingness and
  ability to pay or browsing history, and by good faith and commercial
  ethics. AI **celebrity-impersonation selling** that amounts to fraud draws
  punitive damages under Consumer Protection Law Art. 55. Read with the
  [Platform Pricing Rules](/laws/internet-platform-pricing-rules/) and the
  [Algorithmic Recommendation Provisions](/laws/algorithmic-recommendation-provisions/).
- **Art. 11 — Cars.** Autonomous and assisted-driving accidents are decided
  under the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law; defect claims go to
  producers and sellers; where a defect combines with driver fault, both are
  liable (Civil Code Art. 1172); overstated automation claims are actionable;
  and courts may **order the data-controlling party to produce driving event
  records**.

### Part III — Intellectual property (Arts. 12–16)

- **Art. 12 — AI-generated content and copyright.** Liability among developer,
  provider and user turns on service type, industry, training-data sources,
  each party's participation, necessary measures and profits. **A developer
  raising a non-infringement defense is ordered to produce training-data
  sources, training-process records, the model's operating mode and the
  scientific basis.** A user who knows of a prior work and generates a
  substantially similar one without a defense is liable. AI-enabled
  counterfeiting, false advertising and traffic or order inflation attract
  liability — the rule the courts built case by case in the
  [AI seeding-post decision](/posts/ai-seeding-post-unfair-competition-case/).
- **Art. 13 — Open source.** Exemption is available to open-source developers
  and providers, weighed by license type, the limitations on rights, security
  and compliance measures, and disclosure; a contributor who supplies code
  modules free and publicly explains their function and security risks may be
  held not liable for a downstream user's infringement.
- **Art. 14 — Patents.** AI-related inventions are patentable subject matter
  when they use technical means following natural laws to solve a technical
  problem; a natural person who made a creative contribution to the
  substantive features is the inventor; sufficient disclosure is measured by
  the person of ordinary skill.
- **Art. 15 — Technology contracts.** Breach is judged against the contract,
  the characteristics of AI R&D and whether the developer made reasonable
  efforts.
- **Art. 16 — Data.** Lawfully obtained data rights are protected; datasets
  that qualify as compilation works go to copyright, trade-secret datasets to
  the AUCL, and other datasets to **AUCL Art. 13** — the data clause the
  Beijing Internet Court [applied for the first
  time](/posts/aucl-data-clause-first-case-platform-scraping/) in 2026.
  Algorithmic collusion and abuse of dominance, and data poisoning,
  malicious annotation and adversarial-sample attacks, all attract liability.

### Part IV — Procedure and crime (Arts. 17–20)

- **Art. 17** gives courts the tools for opaque systems: investigation on
  application or on the court's own motion, evidence preservation to fix
  technology, an **adverse inference** against a party that withholds
  documents or electronic data, and people's assessors, forensic appraisers,
  expert assistants and **technical investigation officers**.
- **Art. 18** sets the review points for electronic evidence, big-data
  reports, blockchain-preserved evidence, and — importantly — for AI output
  offered as proof of infringement: prompt design and its influence, degree
  of similarity, consistency on repeated tests, and the model's training,
  algorithm and filtering.
- **Art. 19** sanctions sham litigation built on manipulated AI output
  (including by deleting or altering the labels required under the
  [AI content-labeling measures](/laws/ai-content-labeling-measures/)),
  routes AI-fabricated evidence to Civil Procedure Law Art. 114, and imposes
  the **duty to verify and disclose** AI-generated pleadings and case-search
  reports.
- **Art. 20** lists the offenses — fraud, insult, defamation, damaging
  commercial reputation, infringing citizens' personal information, illegally
  obtaining computer-system data, obscene materials — and adds a specific
  one: defeating an assisted-driving system's monitoring with aftermarket
  accessories.

### Part V — Mechanisms (Arts. 21–24)

- Diversified dispute resolution with industry regulators and specialized
  mediators (**Art. 21**); **elevated jurisdiction** so that novel, complex or
  rule-setting AI cases are tried by higher courts, plus the People's Court
  Case Database (**Art. 22**); judicial recommendations and coordination with
  the cyberspace, public-security, procuratorial and market-regulation
  authorities (**Art. 23**); and cross-border AI and data cases handled with
  an eye to "rule alignment and mutual learning" (**Art. 24**).

### What is not in it

The Court says so itself: the **copyrightability of AI-generated content**
and the **characterization of unlicensed training on others' works** were
too contested to settle, and the Opinions make no provision on either. Both
remain governed by the trial-court decisions that exist today, and both are
flagged for future rules.

---

**Source:** 最高人民法院新闻局 (Supreme People's Court Press Bureau),
《最高法发布〈关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见〉》, 最高人民法院
(Supreme People's Court) WeChat Official Account, September 7, 2026.
[Original](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/1wwUS-nT6veViuSp47YKkw)

— Not legal advice.