---
title: "'Whoever Invests, Whoever Contributes, Whoever Benefits': The Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Data-Rights Guiding Cases"
author: "DCC Editorial"
published: 2026-09-15T02:00:00.000Z
url: https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-qa/
description: "Full translation of the Q&A given by the head of the Supreme People's Court's Research Office on the 47th batch of guiding cases (Guiding Cases Nos. 262–267), the Court's first thematic batch on judicial protection of data rights and interests, released 28 August 2025 under Fa [2025] No. 150. Six questions. On the batch's character: the cases span unfair competition, tort, personal-information protection and enforcement, and — the point the Court presses hardest — they are guiding cases, not 'typical cases', so courts at every level shall refer to them and may cite them in the reasoning of a judgment. On the Data Twenty Articles: No. 262 protects the data processor's operational interest on a 'whoever invests, whoever contributes, whoever benefits' principle; No. 263 protects the data source subject's ability to move its own data between platforms; No. 264 protects the right to process and use data by refusing tort liability for a lawfully compiled price index. On the Anti-Unfair Competition Law: data disputes cluster in unfair competition because copyright cannot reach the operational interest in an aggregate — but from 15 October 2025 courts must apply the revised AUCL's dedicated data clause, Article 13(3), to this conduct. On personal information: Nos. 265 and 266 are a deliberate positive-and-negative pair on PIPL Article 13(1)(2) 'contractual necessity' — a login screen with no alternative is not voluntary consent; a credit check for an 'enjoy now, pay later' fare service is contractually necessary and minimally invasive. On enforcement: No. 267 holds that delivering a platform account means changing the real-name verification too, and that the applicant may ask the court to order the platform to make the change. Plus the Court's stated next steps."
tags: ["spc", "supreme-peoples-court", "guiding-cases", "fa-2025-150", "data-rights", "unfair-competition", "data-scraping", "linked-accounts", "data-products", "contractual-necessity", "notice-and-consent", "buy-now-pay-later", "account-delivery", "judicial"]
laws_cited: ["spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-47th-batch", "anti-unfair-competition-law", "pipl", "civil-code-personal-info", "csl", "data-foundation-system-opinions", "app-necessary-pi-scope-provisions"]
domains: ["data-economy", "personal-information", "enforcement"]
account: "supreme-peoples-court"
original_title: "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"
original_author: "最高人民法院新闻局 (Supreme People's Court Press Bureau)"
original_publication: "最高人民法院知识产权法庭 (SPC Intellectual Property Court) website"
original_url: "https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4587.html"
source_language: "zh"
---

> **Source: Data Compliance China** — https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-qa/ · China data law, translated and annotated for overseas counsel. Cite as: Data Compliance China, "'Whoever Invests, Whoever Contributes, Whoever Benefits': The Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Data-Rights Guiding Cases", https://datacompliancechina.com/posts/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-qa/
> *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](/laws/spc-data-rights-guiding-cases-47th-batch/).
>
> 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](/laws/anti-unfair-competition-law/), 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](/laws/data-foundation-system-opinions/) — 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'](/posts/data-holding-right-two-paths/).
>
> 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.

## 5. No. 267 on enforcement in data-related cases

**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](https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4587.html)

— Not legal advice.