---
title: "'Inclusiveness Is Not Indulgence': The Supreme People's Court Takes Five Questions on Its AI Disputes Opinions"
author: "DCC Editorial"
published: 2026-09-08T01:30:00.000Z
url: https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-press-conference-qa/
description: "Full translation of the Supreme People's Court's press-conference Q&A on the Opinions on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law (关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见, Fa Fa [2026] No. 10), released 7 September 2026. Five questions, answered by the SPC's senior officials. On rights versus innovation: fault-based liability is the default to avoid over-burdening an early-stage industry, 'AI product' is strictly limited to products with a physical carrier (robots, autonomous cars — not AI services), training on lawfully public personal information is generally not an infringement, and algorithmic price discrimination and AI celebrity-impersonation fraud are actionable. On AI-generated content and IP: liability must match control capability and duty of care, a developer raising a non-infringement defense must produce training-data sources, training process and operating mode, and AI-enabled fake reviews and false advertising are unfair competition — while copyrightability of AI output and unlicensed training remain deliberately unaddressed. On personality rights: 'inclusiveness is not indulgence' — Article 4 on face-swapping, voice cloning and 'AI resurrection', Article 5 on doxxing, and Article 8 on personality-rights injunctions against providers. On the 'safe harbor': why Civil Code Article 1195's notice-and-takedown rule applies by analogy to generative-AI providers for both hallucinated and user-induced infringing output. On the courts themselves: AI-fabricated evidence, sham litigation, and the duty to verify and disclose AI-generated pleadings and case-search reports after courts found hallucinated case citations in filings."
tags: ["spc", "supreme-peoples-court", "ai-disputes-opinions", "fa-fa-2026-10", "press-conference", "generative-ai", "safe-harbor", "notice-and-takedown", "deepfake", "doxxing", "ai-hallucination", "ai-copyright", "court-filings", "judicial"]
laws_cited: ["spc-ai-disputes-opinions", "civil-code-personal-info", "pipl", "genai-services-interim-measures", "ai-content-labeling-measures", "anti-unfair-competition-law"]
domains: ["ai-governance", "personal-information", "enforcement"]
account: "supreme-peoples-court"
original_title: "最高法相关部门负责人就《关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见》答记者问"
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/yRDHZoRx2SasPBdamBtl1g"
source_language: "zh"
---

> **Source: Data Compliance China** — https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-press-conference-qa/ · China data law, translated and annotated for overseas counsel. Cite as: Data Compliance China, "'Inclusiveness Is Not Indulgence': The Supreme People's Court Takes Five Questions on Its AI Disputes Opinions", https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-press-conference-qa/
> *Editor's Note — DCC.*
>
> This is the question-and-answer session from the **Supreme People's Court
> (最高人民法院, SPC)** press conference of **7 September 2026** at which the
> Court released the **Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases
> Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law
> (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)**,
> 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)** answered; spokesperson **Ji Zhongbiao (姬忠彪)**
> moderated. The Court's transcript attributes the answers collectively to
> "the responsible officials of the relevant SPC departments", and DCC keeps
> that attribution. The full text of the Opinions is on DCC's
> [law page](/laws/spc-ai-disputes-opinions/); the Court's release note,
> with DCC's article-by-article map, is translated
> [here](/posts/spc-ai-disputes-opinions-24-articles/). Where the first
> answer refers to "Vice President Tao's earlier introduction", it means that
> release presentation.
>
> Five things in this transcript are worth more than the summary reporting
> has given them. **First**, the Court explains *why* it chose fault-based
> liability and a physical-carrier definition of "AI product": not doctrine
> for its own sake, but a stated policy of not loading an early-stage
> industry with strict liability — the same conclusion the Hangzhou Internet
> Court reached in China's [first AI-hallucination
> judgment](/posts/ai-hallucination-tort-genai-service-not-product/), now
> adopted from the top. **Second**, the "safe harbor" for generative AI is
> applied **by analogy** (参照适用) to Civil Code Article 1195, on the
> reasoning that a provider cannot pre-screen every output but can act on
> notice; under Article 7 of the Opinions that notice must include prima
> facie evidence and the rights holder's real identity, and the exposure is
> for the harm that follows a failure to act. **Third**, on AI copyright the
> Court says liability "must match control capability and duty of care" and
> asks who "fed" the training data — and then places the evidentiary burden
> on the developer once the plaintiff shows generation and substantial
> similarity. **Fourth**, the Court is explicit that the two hardest
> questions — copyrightability of AI output and unlicensed training — were
> left out because the drafters could not agree. **Fifth**, the last answer
> confirms that Chinese courts have already encountered hallucinated case
> citations in filings, and that the Opinions' duty to verify and disclose
> AI-generated pleadings is a response to that.
>
> The translation is DCC's. Chinese idioms the officials used for effect are
> kept and glossed rather than flattened.

On 7 September 2026, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference on
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.

## 1. Rights protection versus innovation

**Question:** We note that the Opinions are grounded in current hot-button
and difficult issues and respond in a targeted way to the concerns of the
public and of the AI industry. In their specific content, how do the Opinions
properly handle the relationship between protecting rights and interests and
supporting innovation and development?

**Answer:** In his keynote speech at the opening of the 2026 World Artificial
Intelligence Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance,
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that we must always uphold equal
emphasis on development and security, grasp the trends and laws of AI
development, continuously improve the relevant laws and regulations,
policies and systems, application norms and ethical guidelines, ensure that
AI is safe, reliable and controllable, and let the thousand-li horse of AI
run both fast and steady. The Opinions are built around "equal emphasis on
development and security": they regulate in accordance with law the abuse
and malicious use of AI and strengthen judicial protection of people's
livelihood rights in the digital era, while unambiguously supporting
technological and industrial innovation and escorting the healthy
development of AI. Specifically:

**On protecting people's livelihood rights**, the Opinions mainly provide as
follows. *First*, they step up judicial protection of personality rights and
interests. Unlawful conduct such as AI face-swapping, AI voice cloning and
"online doxxing" (网络开盒) occurs from time to time and is a matter of
great public concern. The Opinions therefore set clear rules for pursuing
liability for using AI to infringe the rights to likeness, reputation,
privacy and voice, so as to give full play to the normative and guiding
function of adjudication and steer AI toward good. *Second*, they protect
personal-information rights and interests in accordance with law.
Large-scale, high-quality training data is the cornerstone of AI
development. To balance protecting personal-information rights with
promoting the AI industry, the Opinions — on the basis of the Civil Code,
the Personal Information Protection Law and other laws — make clear that
processing already lawfully public personal information within a reasonable
scope for AI model training, where the individual has not expressly refused,
is generally not found to be an infringement; but where there is a major
impact on the individual's rights and interests, consent shall be obtained as
the law provides. *Third*, they regulate in accordance with law conduct such
as "big-data price discrimination" (大数据杀熟) and "celebrity-impersonation
selling" that infringes consumers' lawful rights. Recently, algorithm-driven
"big-data price discrimination" has been repeatedly exposed, and
"celebrity-impersonation selling" has drawn close attention. We cannot
expect every consumer to have "fiery eyes and golden pupils" (火眼金睛 —
the Monkey King's power to see through disguise); the law must draw its
sword in time to protect consumers' lawful rights. The Opinions therefore
make clear that where, for the same goods or services, a business operator
uses algorithms to impose unreasonable differential treatment in price or
other transaction conditions, infringing others' lawful rights and causing
harm, the People's Court shall find in accordance with law that it bears
corresponding tort liability; and where AI is used for
"celebrity-impersonation selling" that constitutes fraud and the consumer
claims punitive damages, the People's Court shall support the claim in
accordance with law.

**On supporting innovation and development**, the Opinions mainly provide as
follows. *First*, they accurately grasp the principle for attributing
liability in AI-related torts, avoiding the imposition of excessive
liability while AI technology and industry are still at an early stage of
development, which would dampen the enthusiasm for innovation. The Opinions
make clear that, except where the law expressly provides for no-fault
liability or presumed-fault liability, legal liability for using AI to
infringe civil rights and interests is governed by the fault principle.
*Second*, they strictly define "AI product" in accordance with law to avoid
the over-extension of product liability. The Opinions make clear that,
strictly following the Product Quality Law's definition of "product", AI
products are limited to products with a physical object as their carrier —
intelligent robots and autonomous vehicles, for example — and AI services
without a physical carrier are excluded. *Third*, they fully and accurately
implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity in handling
AI-related criminal cases. On the one hand, the Opinions stress that crimes
committed by intentionally using AI to endanger national security, infringe
citizens' rights or disrupt social order are to be punished severely and
resolutely in accordance with law; on the other hand, they require that
innovative conduct in AI research, development and application be handled
prudently in accordance with law, adhering to the principle of legality and
the principle of proportionality between crime, responsibility and
punishment. In addition, as Vice President Tao explained earlier, the
Opinions make special provision for the proper trial of AI-related
intellectual-property disputes, and those provisions likewise embody the
idea of supporting innovation and development on the track of the rule of
law.

## 2. AI-generated content and intellectual property

**Question:** New types of intellectual-property disputes arising from
AI-generated content occur frequently and attract wide attention. What new
provisions do the Opinions make on handling IP disputes involving
AI-generated content?

**Answer:** Articles 12 to 16 of the Opinions are the provisions specifically
addressing AI-related intellectual-property disputes, and Article 12 gives
guidance on the AI-generated-content question you raise. The Outline of the
15th Five-Year Plan expressly proposes 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 further stresses improving a copyright system
adapted to AI development. The Opinions implement those central
arrangements and respond promptly to public concern. Three points:

**First, the Opinions clarify the factors for determining the liability of
the relevant parties in cases where AI-generated content infringes
copyright.** AI-generated-content infringement involves multiple parties —
AI technology developers, providers and users. Where AI-generated content is
alleged to infringe another's copyright, the relevant parties cannot be
exempted from liability on the ground that the content was AI-generated;
rather, the bearing of liability must match control capability and duty of
care. In determining control capability and duty of care, one generally
considers the technical and business-model characteristics of the AI at
issue, the role each party played in the content-generation process, which
party "fed" the relevant training data, the necessary measures taken, the
profits obtained, and other factors. On that basis, whether the parties had
subjective fault and to what degree is determined in accordance with law,
and infringement liability is reasonably apportioned.

**Second, the Opinions clarify the evidentiary rules for disputes in which
AI-generated content infringes copyright.** A rights holder claiming that an
AI service developer or provider infringed its copyright must adduce evidence
of the preliminary facts — that the infringing content was generated by that
AI, and that it is substantially similar to the work in which rights are
claimed. Because AI technology is complex and opaque, the relevant evidence
is not something others can obtain. Therefore, where an AI developer raises a
non-infringement defense, it must adduce evidence on the sources of the
model's training data, the training process, the mode of operation and the
like, and where necessary provide the relevant scientific theoretical basis
as corroboration. Where an AI user knows or ought to know of a prior work,
uses AI to generate a work substantially similar to the prior work, and has
no defense such as fair use, infringement shall be found.

**Third, the Opinions regulate in accordance with law unfair competition
carried out with AI-generated content.** In the past two years, disputes over
the use of AI to carry out unfair competition have been rising. Business
operators use AI-generated text, images, videos and virtual characters to
fabricate traffic and positive reviews, and even fabricate "popular-science"
videos using AI face-swapping for false advertising. Such conduct not only
harms others' lawful rights and interests but seriously misleads consumers
and disrupts the order of market competition; it shall be found in
accordance with law to constitute passing-off infringement, false
advertising and the like.

It should be explained that, during the drafting and argumentation of the
Opinions, opinions diverged widely on the copyrightability of AI-generated
content and on the characterization of using others' works without
permission to train AI large models, and understanding needs to deepen
further. The Opinions therefore make no provision on these two questions
for now. AI technology is developing at a breakneck pace, and new situations
and new problems keep emerging. Next, we will continue to follow closely the
intellectual-property protection issues in AI and other emerging fields,
continuously understand and grasp the underlying laws in practice,
continuously summarize adjudication experience, improve adjudication rules,
and work to build consensus.

## 3. Personality rights: face-swapping, voice cloning, doxxing, injunctions

**Question:** As AI iterates faster, technologies such as deepfakes,
intelligent data collection and user profiling have sharply lowered the
threshold for infringement, and the protection of personality rights faces
severe challenges. You mentioned that the Opinions address hot-button
personality-rights issues such as "AI face-swapping and voice cloning" and
"online doxxing". Could you elaborate?

**Answer:** Personality rights bear on everyone's personal dignity and are
the most basic and important rights of civil subjects. We stress that the
protection of personality rights and the development of the AI industry
must be balanced with an inclusive and prudent attitude — but inclusiveness
is not indulgence, and prudence is not laissez-faire. To respond to public
concern and guide adjudication, the Opinions make targeted provision, by
type, for the abuse and malicious use of AI technology that infringes
personality rights. Mainly:

**First, they regulate in accordance with law "AI face-swapping and voice
cloning" and other uses of AI that infringe the rights to likeness,
reputation and voice.** In practice, the strongest complaints concern AI
deepfakes. AI face-swapping can "harvest" anyone's likeness
indiscriminately, so that ordinary people, too, can become deepfake
"targets"; with AI voice cloning, a few yuan will "steal a voice", with
results convincing enough to pass as real. Recently the news media also
exposed a black-market chain selling "one-click AI undressing" software and
tutorials, which the public detests. Article 4 of the Opinions provides
expressly: using AI without consent to process a natural person's name,
likeness and the like to generate a virtual digital likeness identifiable as
that person, and using or publishing it, infringes the right to name, the
right to likeness and other personality rights and interests; using a
natural person's voice without consent as training corpus to imitate his or
her timbre, intonation and pronunciation style and generate an identifiable
synthetic voice infringes the voice rights and interests; manipulating a
virtual likeness or synthetic voice to engage in improper conduct or make
untrue statements that lower another's social evaluation infringes the
right to reputation — and the actor's tort liability is pursued in
accordance with law. In addition, on the phenomenon of "AI resurrection" of
the deceased that has drawn public attention, the Opinions also make special
provision to protect the personality interests of the deceased in
accordance with law.

**Second, they regulate in accordance with law the use of AI for "online
doxxing", "human-flesh search" (人肉搜索) and other conduct infringing the
right to privacy.** "Online doxxing" and "human-flesh search" are prominent
forms of online violence; they seriously infringe victims' right to privacy,
seriously disturb the tranquility of their lives, undermine the public's
sense of security, and pollute the online ecosystem. We now see AI used to
track and analyze a specific person's public information — telephone
numbers, online accounts, social media — in order to obtain private
information, or to leak or publish the private information so obtained.
Article 5 of the Opinions makes special provision on this.

**Third, they clarify the rules for applying the personality-rights
infringement injunction.** Using AI to infringe personality rights is
low-cost, spreads fast, has wide impact and causes harm that is hard to
reverse; the traditional remedy of suing after the fact does not protect
victims' lawful rights promptly and effectively, so the lawful application
of the personality-rights infringement injunction is especially important.
Article 8 of the Opinions makes this clear. For example, a victim who has
evidence that she is the target of AI face-swapped "sexual rumors" (黄谣),
and that failing to stop it promptly would cause irreparable harm to her
lawful rights, may apply to the People's Court for a personality-rights
infringement injunction. On review, where the conditions are met, the
People's Court may order the network user to cease the infringing conduct,
and may also order the network service provider or AI service provider to
take necessary measures promptly to prevent the harm from spreading further.

It should be stressed in particular that deepfakes and similar technologies
are now used from time to time for fraud, insult, defamation, infringement
of citizens' personal information, and the production, sale and
dissemination of obscene materials. Where such conduct constitutes a crime,
it is to be severely punished and criminal liability pursued in accordance
with law; the Opinions make special provision on this.

## 4. The "safe harbor" for generative AI

**Question:** Generative-AI software is now widely used, and the related
civil disputes have drawn public attention. I note that, for determining
infringement by generative AI, the Opinions introduce the "safe-harbor
rule". Could you go into that in depth?

**Answer:** Article 1195 of the Civil Code provides the "notice-and-takedown
rule", commonly called the "safe-harbor rule". Simply put: when a network
user uses a network service to commit an infringement (posting abuse about
someone online, say), the rights holder, on discovering it, may notify the
network service provider to take measures such as blocking or deletion; the
provider, on receiving a qualified notice, must promptly take necessary
measures, failing which it bears joint and several liability with the user
for the expanded part of the harm. Conversely, if the provider promptly
takes necessary measures after notice, it generally bears no tort liability.

In practice there has been controversy over whether generative-AI service
providers may claim application of the "safe-harbor rule" by analogy. On
study, we consider that although generative-AI services differ from
traditional network services, the two are also similar in their operating
mechanism. A generative-AI provider likewise organizes vast amounts of
information and supplies it to network users; a large model's output depends
on the prior training data, the model parameters, the prompts the user
enters and other factors; the provider can hardly foresee in advance
everything users will input; and the volume of generated content is so
enormous that a provider cannot be required to predict, review and intercept
every output for infringement one by one. But once AI — through its own
hallucination or a user's malicious inducement — has generated infringing
content, and the rights holder gives notice, the generative-AI provider
should, and is in a position to, take necessary measures. There is therefore
a legitimate and reasonable basis for applying the "safe-harbor rule" to
generative-AI providers by analogy.

The Opinions accordingly provide for the determination of liability where
"AI hallucination" infringes personality rights and where a user maliciously
induces AI to do so. They make clear that: where content automatically
generated by generative AI infringes personality rights and, after notice
from the rights holder, the AI service provider fails to promptly take
necessary measures such as ceasing to generate the infringing content, it
bears tort liability in accordance with law for the harm caused; and where a
network user maliciously induces generative AI to generate infringing
content — by inputting infringing prompts or otherwise — and causes harm to
another, that network user bears tort liability in accordance with law, and
where, after notice from the rights holder, the AI service provider fails to
promptly take necessary measures such as ceasing to generate the infringing
content and blocking the relevant generation instructions, and the rights
holder requests that the network user and the AI service provider bear civil
liability, the People's Court supports the request in accordance with law.
These provisions accord with the laws of technological development and the
legislative spirit of the Civil Code, and embody the organic unity of
supporting innovation and governance in accordance with law; during the
consultation process, all sides unanimously endorsed them.

## 5. AI in the courtroom: fabricated evidence, sham litigation, unverified filings

**Question:** AI's impact is felt across every field, and adjudication
itself faces new risks and challenges. For example, some litigation
participants submit AI-generated evidence and other litigation materials to
the court without verifying them first. How do the Opinions respond to such
use of AI to obstruct the judicial order?

**Answer:** Litigation participants must observe the principle of good faith
in litigation. As generative-AI technology has spread, it has become
increasingly common for participants to use AI to assist their litigation.
But AI is only an auxiliary tool; participants may not rely on "AI
hallucination" or technology neutrality to escape their own legal
responsibility. Participants must screen and verify the evidence and other
litigation materials they submit to the court to ensure they are true and
accurate. To guide the public in using AI reasonably, prevent false
materials from entering proceedings, and effectively safeguard the judicial
order, the Opinions make provision in three respects.

**First, they punish in accordance with law sham litigation using AI.** Where
a party exploits AI's self-learning and autonomous-decision-making
characteristics to fabricate the facts of a case — by deleting or tampering
with AI-generated and composed content labels, inputting specific
instructions, selectively presenting results, adversarial interference or
other human intervention or misdirection — and brings sham litigation, the
People's Court shall dismiss its claims in accordance with law and impose a
fine or detention according to the seriousness of the circumstances; where a
crime is constituted, criminal liability is pursued in accordance with law.

**Second, they regulate in accordance with law the use of AI to fabricate
evidence.** The Opinions provide expressly that where a litigation
participant or another person uses AI to fabricate evidence and obstructs
the People's Court's trial of the case, the matter is handled under
Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law — that is, a fine or detention
according to the seriousness of the circumstances, and, where a crime is
constituted, criminal liability in accordance with law.

**Third, they provide expressly that litigation participants bear a duty to
verify and explain AI-generated litigation documents, case-search reports and
the like.** The People's Courts have already found multiple instances of
AI-generated false cases that the parties and their representatives did not
fully verify before submitting to the court. In January this year the news
media reported on such incidents in a concentrated way, and a case on the
point has been entered into the People's Court Case Database. On that basis,
the Opinions provide expressly that where litigation documents, case-search
reports or other materials submitted by a participant were generated using
AI, the participant shall, before submission to the court, carefully verify
the authenticity and accuracy of the laws, judicial interpretations, cases
and other content involved, shall truthfully explain the use of AI
assistance when submitting them, and shall bear responsibility in accordance
with law for the authenticity and accuracy of the content. Courts abroad are
likewise highly attentive to this problem; we note that some countries have
issued dedicated guidance stressing that representatives are responsible
for ensuring the accuracy of materials submitted to the court.

---

**Source:** 最高人民法院新闻局 (Supreme People's Court Press Bureau),
《最高法相关部门负责人就〈关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见〉答记者问》,
最高人民法院 (Supreme People's Court) WeChat Official Account, September 7,
2026. [Original](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/yRDHZoRx2SasPBdamBtl1g)

— Not legal advice.