Filed under ai-disputes-opinions
Every brief tagged "ai-disputes-opinions".
- § 01 · SPC
Fa Fa [2026] No. 10: How the Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Adjudication Rules for AI Disputes
On 7 September 2026 the Supreme People's Court released the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见), document number Fa Fa [2026] No. 10 (法发〔2026〕10号) — the first adjudication-rules document on AI from China's highest court. This brief translates the Court's own release note in full: the drafting background (the April 2025 Politburo study session, the 15th Five-Year Plan's call for rules on AI-generated output, the State Council's IP plan), the four drafting considerations (including the Court's statement that China has no dedicated AI law, so the Opinions work through the Civil Code, PIPL, Copyright Law, AUCL, Consumer Protection Law and Civil Procedure Law), and the part-by-part summary of the 24 articles. DCC then maps every article for overseas counsel — the fault-based default under Civil Code Art. 1165(1); the Article 4 rules on AI face-swapping, voice cloning and 'AI resurrection'; the Article 5 doxxing rule; Article 6 on training with lawfully public personal information; Article 7's notice-and-takedown rule for generative-AI providers; Article 8 injunctions; Article 9's physical-carrier limit on 'AI product'; Article 10 on algorithmic price discrimination and celebrity-impersonation fraud; Article 11 on autonomous and assisted driving; the IP articles 12–16 (training-data disclosure by developers, open-source exemption, AI-assisted inventions, technology contracts, data use under copyright, trade secrets and AUCL Art. 13); the procedure articles 17–20 (adverse inference, evidence review of AI output, sanctions for AI-fabricated evidence, the duty to verify and disclose AI-generated filings); and the working-mechanism articles 21–24 — and explains what a 法发 document is and is not.
- § 02 · SPC
'Inclusiveness Is Not Indulgence': The Supreme People's Court Takes Five Questions on Its AI Disputes Opinions
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.