Editor’s Note — DCC.

On 28 August 2025 the Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院, SPC) issued its 47th batch of guiding cases — Guiding Cases Nos. 262 to 267, under Fa [2025] No. 150 (法〔2025〕150号) — the Court’s first thematic batch on judicial protection of data rights and interests (数据权益). This is the Q&A the head of the Court’s Research Office (研究室) gave a few days later, released through the SPC Press Bureau. DCC translates it in full from the text published on the SPC Intellectual Property Court’s website; the notice and all six cases are translated on DCC’s law page.

Four things here are worth more than the summary reporting has given them.

First, the weight. The Court goes out of its way to say these are guiding cases (指导性案例) and not the typical cases (典型案例) it has published on data before. The distinction is load-bearing: courts at every level shall refer to (应当参照) a guiding case when trying a similar case and may quote it in the reasoning section of a judgment. It is still not the legal basis of a ruling — that remains the statute — but it is the closest thing in the Chinese system to a precedent an advocate can cite.

Second, a handoff that dates the cases. Nos. 262 and 263 were decided under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the general good-faith clause, because there was nothing more specific. The revised AUCL, passed 27 June 2025, added a dedicated data clause at Article 13(3), and the Research Office instructs courts that from 15 October 2025 they must apply it. So the holdings survive as reasoning templates while the citation moves. Counsel reading No. 262 should treat “substantial substitution” as the test that carried over, not Article 2 as the hook.

Third, Nos. 265 and 266 were chosen as a pair, and the Court says so — one finding infringement, one refusing it, both on PIPL Article 13(1)(2) “necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract to which the individual is a party”. Read together they give the most concrete test China’s highest court has offered on contractual necessity: measure the collection against the app’s basic-function service, use the CAC’s necessary-information catalogue as the reference point, and treat a registration screen with no “skip”, no refusal and no alternative login as producing consent that is not voluntary and therefore not consent at all. That last rule is directly operational for anyone running a consumer app in China.

Fourth, No. 267 answers a question that comes up constantly in founder-and-company disputes: a judgment ordering delivery of a platform account is worth little if the losing party keeps the real-name verification, because they can reset the password. The Court holds that delivery includes changing the verified identity — and that where the losing party will not cooperate, the applicant can have the court order the platform to do it.

One framing note for overseas readers. The Court’s vocabulary here is the vocabulary of the Data Twenty Articles — the 2022 Party-and-State-Council policy that set up China’s “separation of three rights” data-property framework. The Q&A is explicitly an exercise in showing that judicial doctrine is tracking that policy. Whether the underlying theory holds together is a live argument in China itself; DCC has translated one of the sharper sceptical treatments in Two Paths for the ‘Right to Hold Data’.

Party names are anonymized in the original. — Not legal advice.

Strengthening Judicial Protection of Data Rights and Interests, Serving the Healthy Development of the Digital Economy

The head of the Supreme People’s Court’s Research Office answers reporters’ questions on the thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests

On 28 August the Supreme People’s Court issued the 47th batch of guiding cases (Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267). This is the first time the Supreme People’s Court has issued thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests. To help all sectors of society and the People’s Courts at every level understand the content and spirit of this thematic batch fully and accurately, the head of the Supreme People’s Court’s Research Office answered reporters’ questions.

1. The distinctive features of the batch

Question: Could you introduce the distinctive features of this first batch of thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests?

Answer: Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly given important instructions on giving play to data’s role as a foundational resource and an engine of innovation, and on accelerating the formation of a digital economy led and supported primarily by innovation. The Party Central Committee has made a series of major decisions and arrangements, working to build the foundational data system and to promote a better role for data as a factor of production. To implement the Party Central Committee’s decisions and arrangements in full, to provide strong support and service for the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy, and to give full play to the role of the judiciary in building the foundational data system, the Supreme People’s Court has issued this first batch of thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests. In summary, the batch has three features.

First, the case types are comprehensive. This batch is fairly broad in scope, covering the case categories in which data-rights disputes frequently arise — unfair competition disputes, tort liability disputes, personal information protection disputes and enforcement implementation — and touching questions of high public concern: the determination of data ownership, the utilization of data products, personal information protection and the delivery of network platform accounts. These are, it may be said, the key questions in building the foundational data system, the hot questions in academic research and the bottleneck questions in judicial practice. Although the cases differ in type and field, all of them embody the People’s Courts’ basic orientation of protecting data rights and interests in accordance with law and promoting the development of a digital economy with data as a key factor.

Second, the case rules are multi-dimensional. As a new type of factor of production, data has highly complex economic and legal characteristics, which pose new challenges to traditional legal institutions. The Civil Code makes only a referring provision, in Article 127: “Where the law has provisions on the protection of data and online virtual property, those provisions apply.” For conflicts and disputes arising over data ownership, circulation and trading, distribution of proceeds and security safeguards, existing law does not yet provide sufficient and clear rule guidance, and the People’s Courts need to explore scientific and reasonable paths of protection through adjudication. On that basis, this batch of guiding cases focuses on summarizing and distilling the relatively mature adjudication rules; oriented toward activating the potential of data as a factor of production and promoting the development of the digital economy, it builds a preliminary framework for a rule system of judicial protection of data rights and interests, and promotes greater uniformity in the standards applied in data-related cases.

Third, the cases carry higher force. Unlike the typical cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests published previously, what is issued this time are thematic guiding cases. For guiding cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court, the People’s Courts at every level shall refer to them when trying similar cases, and may quote the relevant guiding case in the reasoning section of the judgment. The cases in this batch therefore carry a relatively high order of force, and the People’s Courts at every level should, strictly on the basis of laws, judicial interpretations and normative documents and by reference to this thematic batch of guiding cases, do a solid job of adjudicating and enforcing data-related cases, help resolve conflicts and disputes at source, and promote the high-quality development of a digital economy with data as a key factor.

2. How the batch implements the “Data Twenty Articles”

Question: In December 2022 the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the Opinions on Building a Foundational Data System to Give Better Play to the Role of Data Factors, making overall arrangements for establishing a foundational data property system. How does this first batch of thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests implement the relevant requirements of the Opinions?

Answer: The Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Building a Foundational Data System to Give Better Play to the Role of Data Factors builds the foundational data system across data property rights, circulation and trading, distribution of proceeds and security governance, and puts forward twenty policy measures — hence the name the “Data Twenty Articles”. This batch of thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests is precisely a concentrated expression of implementing the “Data Twenty Articles” and providing comprehensive judicial protection for data rights and interests from the standpoint of the adjudication function. Three of the guiding cases may serve as illustrations.

One: protecting the operational rights and interests of data processors in accordance with law. The “Data Twenty Articles” call for “reasonably protecting the rights and interests of data processors in independently controlling the data they lawfully hold” and for “protecting the right to operate data or data derivative products formed through processing, analysis and the like”. Tech Co. v. Media Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 262) confirms that Tech Co. holds an operational interest in the data aggregate formed by pooling short videos, user comments and user information, and finds that Media Co.’s obtaining that data without permission and providing it to the public — enough to substantially substitute for the products and services Tech Co. provides — constitutes unfair competition. This is precisely the protection of a data processor’s rights and interests in accordance with law on the principle of “whoever invests, whoever contributes, whoever benefits” (谁投入、谁贡献、谁受益); it helps push the proceeds from data factors reasonably toward those who create data value and use value, activates the potential of data factors, and fully releases the value dividend of data as a factor of production.

Two: effectively promoting the circulation of data factors. The “Data Twenty Articles” call for “fully protecting the lawful rights and interests of data source subjects, promoting models of data circulation and use based on informed consent or statutory grounds, and safeguarding the right of data source subjects to obtain or copy and transfer the data they have helped to generate”. Network Co. v. Information Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 263), addressing the linked- account service — a fairly common service model in cyberspace — holds that 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. This safeguards to the greatest extent the data source subject’s right of autonomous choice in participating in the online economy, and is significant for promoting the sharing and joint use of data, enhancing the shareability and inclusiveness of data factors, releasing the data value dividend and advancing the digital economy.

Three: reasonably protecting the rights and interests in processing and using data. The “Data Twenty Articles” call for “recognizing and protecting the right to process and use data obtained in accordance with legal provisions or contractual agreement, respecting the labour and other factor contributions of data processors in collecting, processing and otherwise handling data, and fully safeguarding data processors’ rights to use data and obtain proceeds”. The key points of the judgment in Steel Co. v. E-Commerce Co. (Tort Liability Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 264) make clear that: “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.” This helps encourage the lawful, reasonable and effective use of data, safeguards the lawful and orderly free flow of data, and advances the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy.

3. Nos. 262 and 263 against the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law

Question: On 27 June 2025 the 16th session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress revised the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Guiding Cases Nos. 262 and 263 are unfair competition disputes. What guiding significance do those two cases have against the background of that revision?

Answer: The statistics show that unfair competition disputes are fairly concentrated within civil adjudication of data rights and interests. There are two main reasons. On the one hand, network platforms readily fall into disputes over commercial interests connected with data, and in particular tend to disagree sharply over data ownership and the allocation of interests; these disputes arise out of market competition and often involve unfair competition. On the other hand, the law providing dedicated protection for data is not yet complete, and the types of data rights and interests and their modes of protection are still at an exploratory and developing stage; for data falling outside the scope of the Copyright Law or other intellectual property laws, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law can be applied to provide supplementary protection. The Copyright Law, for example, protects original intellectual achievements, and also sound recordings and video recordings which have some value but lack originality. Works, sound recordings and video recordings and the like are therefore protected as data by the Copyright Law — but the operational interest in the data aggregate formed by pooling such data cannot be protected under the Copyright Law directly. In that situation, scraping and hauling away the relevant data without permission so as to substantially substitute for the network platform’s product or service may be found to constitute unfair competition under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

On that basis, this batch of thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests deliberately selects two unfair competition disputes — Tech Co. v. Media Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 262) and Network Co. v. Information Co. (Unfair Competition Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 263) — weaving together a system of adjudication rules for data-related unfair competition disputes. This is significant for the People’s Courts in applying the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law correctly when trying data-related cases and in handling data-rights disputes accurately in accordance with law.

It should be noted that the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law makes a dedicated provision, in Article 13(3), on unfair competition that infringes data rights and interests. Accordingly, from the entry into force of the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law on 15 October 2025, the People’s Courts should apply Article 13(3) and the related provisions in determining accurately, in accordance with law, whether the relevant conduct constitutes unfair competition. In particular, in trying data-related cases the People’s Courts at every level must grasp deeply the major significance of this revision — especially of the addition of the dedicated data clause — and, in light of this thematic batch of guiding cases, do a solid job of the relevant adjudication work and ensure the effect of the judgments.

4. Nos. 265 and 266 on personal information protection

Question: Guiding Cases Nos. 265 and 266 are personal information protection disputes. What guiding significance do those two cases have for strengthening personal information protection?

Answer: Personal information bears on the immediate interests of the people, and is also closely bound up with the development of the digital economy and the public interest. The “Data Twenty Articles” require personal information protection to be strengthened, calling for “data carrying personal information to be collected, held, entrusted and used by data processors in accordance with laws and regulations within the scope of the individual’s authorization, for the processing of personal information to be regulated, and for excessive collection of personal information by means such as ‘bundled authorization’ and forced consent to be prohibited”, and for “stronger personal information protection, with key industries pushed to establish sound long-term protection mechanisms, enterprises’ primary responsibility strengthened, and enterprises’ collection and use of personal information regulated”. To implement those requirements and to enforce strictly the provisions of the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law and other laws on personal information protection, this batch of thematic guiding cases deliberately selects two personal information protection disputes — Luo v. Tech Co. (Privacy and Personal Information Protection Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 265) and Huang v. Credit Management Co. (Personal Information Protection Dispute) (Guiding Case No. 266) — responding to the demand that the development of the data-factor market places on the supply of personal information protection rules, and weaving together a system of adjudication rules for personal-information data disputes.

It should be noted that fully protecting the security of personal information is an important precondition for promoting the lawful and efficient circulation and use of data. The “Data Twenty Articles” stress “regulating the processing of personal information” and “promoting the reasonable use of personal information”, setting the direction for further improving the rules on processing personal information. The two guiding cases address typical scenarios in which network platforms collect users’ personal information, focus on the concrete application of the notice-and-consent rule for processing personal information, and refine the rules for applying the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law from both the positive and the negative side — reasonably balancing the protection and the utilization of personal information and working to create a secure, well-regulated and orderly environment for the circulation and use of personal-information data. In detail: as to Guiding Case No. 265, the basic-function service of the app at issue was to provide online course video streams and related text, images and videos, and collecting user-profiling information was not necessary to that basic-function service. On that premise, where a website’s or software’s login and registration interface collects the relevant 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. As to Guiding Case No. 266, the “enjoy now, pay later” function has the activation of a credit service as a necessary condition, and the relevant credit service provider’s collection 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 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, 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.

In recent years apps have come into wide use, operators commonly collect users’ personal information, and the related disputes have grown steadily. Guiding Case No. 265 is a case in which an app operator excessively collected users’ personal information and was ultimately found by the court to have infringed personal-information rights and interests. It is a further warning to app operators to strengthen their personal information protection awareness in earnest, comply strictly with the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law and other relevant provisions, strengthen the building of enterprise data compliance systems, ensure that personal information is collected and used within the boundaries the law provides, and avoid crossing the red lines of the law.

Question: Guiding Case No. 267 is an enforcement implementation case involving the delivery of a network platform account. What guiding significance does that case have for enforcement in data-related cases?

Answer: Media Co. v. You (Enforcement Case) (Guiding Case No. 267) is an enforcement implementation case involving the delivery of a network platform account. In enforcing the delivery of a network platform account and password, the enforcement court gave full consideration to the characteristics of network platform accounts, grasped the content of the judgment accurately on the basis of the law, confirmed that the relevant real-name verification information was to be changed in accordance with law at the same time as the account and password were delivered, and notified the relevant platform to assist in enforcement, completing the transfer of the account. This has important guiding significance for enforcement in data-related cases.

On the one hand, it makes clear that enforcement of the delivery of a network platform account includes the change of real-name verification information. 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. The key to delivering the account and password at issue is 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; if 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. On that basis, the enforcement court confirmed that the relevant real-name verification information was to be changed in accordance with law at the same time as the account and password were delivered. Building on that, the key points of the enforcement in this guiding case further make clear that “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”. This has a positive guiding significance for clarifying to parties what the enforcement of the delivery of a network platform account consists of, and for guiding parties and network platforms to perform the relevant obligations of their own accord.

On the other hand, it makes clear that where the person subject to enforcement does not perform the relevant obligation, the party may seek a remedy from the enforcement court. Article 24(1) of the Cybersecurity Law 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 …”. 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. In practice, however, for various reasons it not infrequently happens that the person subject to enforcement cannot perform the change of a network platform account’s real-name verification information of their own accord. That was the position in this case: because the person subject to enforcement objectively faced an impediment to performance, the enforcement court, 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. Building on that, the key points of the enforcement in this guiding case further make clear that “where the person subject to enforcement does not perform the aforesaid 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”. This is significant guidance for substantively safeguarding a successful party’s rights through enforcement procedures in accordance with law where necessary.

6. What comes next

Question: This is the first time the Supreme People’s Court has issued thematic guiding cases on judicial protection of data rights and interests. What are the Supreme People’s Court’s plans for the adjudication and enforcement of data-related cases going forward?

Answer: The Supreme People’s Court will take the issuance of this thematic batch of guiding cases as an opportunity to guide local People’s Courts at every level to give full play to the adjudication function, to continue strengthening the adjudication and enforcement of data-related cases, to strengthen judicial protection of data rights and interests through active performance of duties, and to provide strong judicial services and safeguards for the high-quality development of the digital economy.

First, strengthening judicial protection of data rights and interests. Try in accordance with law data-related disputes over personality rights, property rights and other rights and interests, and intellectual property disputes; determine data-related unfair competition accurately; promote an open, healthy and secure data ecosystem; and advance the well-regulated and healthy development of the digital economy. In step with the trends of industrial digitalization and the digitalization of industry, and from the standpoint of the adjudication function, safeguard national data security effectively, protect personal information and trade secrets effectively, promote compliant and efficient circulation and use of data, and advance the deep integration of the real economy and the digital economy.

Second, strengthening adjudication guidance in data-related cases. Guide local People’s Courts at every level to implement strictly the provisions of laws, judicial interpretations and normative documents, grasp accurately the gist and spirit of this thematic batch of guiding cases, and do a solid job of adjudicating and enforcing the relevant cases. At the same time, strengthen targeted research around major questions such as the determination of data property ownership, market transactions, allocation of rights and interests and protection of interests; issue judicial interpretations and normative documents in due course; publish guiding cases, reference cases entered into the database and typical cases; clarify adjudication standards and unify the measure applied; promote the improvement of legislation; and contribute judicial experience and wisdom to building a data property system with Chinese characteristics.

Third, strengthening legal publicity and education. Adapt to the development of the digital economy era, innovate the content and forms of legal publicity in light of the characteristics of data-related cases, and work to improve its practical effect, creating a favourable atmosphere and environment for data security protection, effective utilization and compliant circulation. Through case-based explanation of the law, promote a genuinely stronger sense of legality among market entities, strengthen whole-process data compliance governance, ensure that data sources are lawful, that privacy protection is in place and that circulation and trading are well regulated, effectively safeguard the lawful rights and interests of all participants in data factors, and let all the people share better in the fruits of the digital economy’s development.

Source: 最高人民法院新闻局 (Supreme People’s Court Press Bureau), 《加强数据权益司法保护服务数字经济健康发展——最高人民法院研究室负责人就数据权益司法保护专题指导性案例答记者问》, published 2 September 2025 on the 最高人民法院知识产权法庭 (SPC Intellectual Property Court) website. Original

— Not legal advice.