Filed under beijing-financial-court
Every brief tagged "beijing-financial-court".
- § 01 · CONSENT
One Signature, Two Documents: A Beijing Financial Court Ruling and the Case for Asking for Less Consent
A bank customer buying RMB 100,000 of savings bonds signed electronically three times; the bank applied the first signature both to the bond slip and to a 'Personal Information Authorization Letter'. The courts held the authorization was never formed, at first instance and on appeal, where the Beijing Financial Court ruled on December 30, 2024 ((2024)京74民终1694号). The bank had not drawn attention to the document, the customer did not stop to read it, and there was no sign of the separate tick-box step the letter itself required. 数据何规 (What Rules for Data) agrees with the courts' scrutiny of what the customer knew. It parts company with their reasoning, which treats PI consent as contractual mutual assent. Following Cheng Xiao and Gao Fuping, the author argues that consent under the PIPL is not a declaration of intent, and that withdrawing consent is not rescinding a contract. The practical point is the larger one: where PIPL Article 13 supplies another legal basis, such as performing the contract or a statutory obligation, don't ask for consent at all. Proper notice is then enough.