Filed under data-scraping
Every brief tagged "data-scraping".
- § 01 · SPC
'Whoever Invests, Whoever Contributes, Whoever Benefits': The Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Data-Rights Guiding Cases
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.
- § 02 · ANTI-UNFAIR-COMPETITION
How the Beijing Internet Court Found a Platform 'Lawfully Held' Its Data Under the New AUCL Article 13 — and Where It Meets the 'Right to Hold Data'
The Beijing Internet Court's 30 April 2026 judgment — the first published application of the data clause (Article 13) of the 2025-revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, effective 15 October 2025 — turns on one threshold question: did the plaintiff platform 'lawfully hold' (合法持有) the scraped career data? DCC walks through exactly how the court got to 'yes', step by step: the data originated as personal information collected with user consent under the platform's Service Agreement and Privacy Policy (no unlawful processing on record); the operator's build-and-run investment aggregated scattered records into a dataset with standalone economic value; and that dataset is the foundational input for the platform's matching business and competitive advantage. From those three findings the court derives its operative definition — data lawfully collected/stored/used, formed through substantial investment, and capable of generating business benefit or competitive advantage — and holds that the defendant's crawler-and-resale scheme, circumventing login and access controls, was unfair competition (¥200,000 + ¥30,000-plus in costs). The brief then takes up the doctrinal question: does Article 13's 'lawfully held data' correspond to the 'right to hold data' (数据持有权) in the Data 20 Articles' three-rights framework? The answer is a functional yes — the court is enforcing the holding right's purely defensive content, exactly as Hong Yanqing's analysis predicted AUCL Article 13 would — but not a doctrinal one: it builds a competition-tort interest on investment and lawful sourcing, deliberately sidestepping any claim that data is a typed property right. DCC's case brief for overseas counsel, drawn against the earlier AUCL Article 2 general-clause data cases.