Filed under enforcement
Every brief tagged "enforcement".
- § 01 · ENFORCEMENT
MIIT Public-Naming Bulletin 2026 Batch 4 (Total Batch 57): 32 Apps and SDKs Cited for PI Violations, Excessive Permission Demands, and SDK Disclosure Failures
On July 2, 2026, MIIT's Information & Communications Administration Bureau issued its fourth public-naming bulletin of 2026 (total Batch 57), citing 32 apps and SDKs for infringing user rights — unlawful and beyond-scope collection of personal information, forced/frequent/excessive permission demands, frequent self-starting and chained starting, uncloseable and redirect-abusing information windows, and inadequate SDK information disclosure. The batch runs under the same 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS special campaign as the earlier CAC notification and Shanghai takedown covered in DCC's enforcement tracker, on the same rectify-or-face-disposition pathway. DCC transcribes the full 32-entry list from the bulletin's attached image table. The profile: a mobility-and-transport long tail (ride-hailing driver apps, EV charging, bus-information tools) alongside recognizable names — Neta Auto's app, PetroChina Kunlun's charging app, NetDragon's fortune-telling app, iFlyPlus — plus two WeChat mini-programs, multiple Apple App Store listings, one developer named twice, and three SDKs, one of which (闪登 SDK) drew four separate findings including the headline SDK-disclosure failure.
- § 02 · ENFORCEMENT
From Naming to Takedown: Shanghai Pulls 46 Apps That Missed the Rectification Window
On June 24, 2026 the Shanghai Communications Administration (上海市通信管理局, the MIIT's directly-administered local communications authority) issued a notification ordering the takedown of 46 apps and SDKs that, after public naming and a rectification window, still had not fixed user-rights and personal-information violations. DCC reads it as the next rung on the enforcement ladder above the CAC's 30-app naming notification: same 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS special campaign, but the local communications-administration tier converting an unrectified naming into an operative sanction — removal from distribution, with further measures flagged (suspension of access, administrative penalty, inclusion in the telecom-business bad-record list). The legal basis is PIPL, the Cybersecurity Law, the Telecom Regulations, and the Telecom and Internet User PI Protection Provisions. The 46-app list — transcribed here from the notice's attached image — is almost entirely Shanghai-registered long-tail O2O lifestyle apps (moving, housekeeping and cleaning, pet services, local travel agencies, community group-buy food, fitness and restaurants), and several operators appear with multiple apps taken down at once. DCC's read for overseas counsel: the provincial communications administrations are where a missed rectification window becomes a removed app, and the takedown tier sweeps the small-operator long tail, not just big nationals.
- § 03 · ENFORCEMENT
Ctrip's ¥10 Million Fine: China's First Publicly Disclosed Cross-Border Data Penalty — and the 'Necessity' Doctrine Behind Four Cases
In June 2026 Shanghai's cyberspace authority fined Shanghai Ctrip Commerce ¥10 million for unlawfully exporting personal information without implementing data-export security-assessment requirements — the first time a Chinese cross-border data penalty amount has been made public. DCC reads the fine against the three earlier Shanghai / MPS cross-border cases compiled by HexCode in 数据何规 (a hotel company that exported fields the CAC assessment had rejected, a property company that exported accommodation and financial-account data with no approval at all, and the Dior breach case) to surface the doctrine all four share: building a CRM or central-reservation system offshore does not make the bulk transfer of customer PI to headquarters 'necessary,' so it cannot escape the security-assessment / standard-contract / certification gate or PIPL's separate-consent and individual-notification requirements. The enforcement gradient — the assessment-rejected exporter was fined while the no-approval exporter was only warned — signals that subjective culpability is weighing on penalty severity.
- § 04 · ENFORCEMENT
CAC Names 30 Apps and Mini-Programs for PI Violations — Nearly Half for Ineffective Account Cancellation
On June 11, 2026 the Office of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission published a notification naming 30 apps and mini-programs for personal-information collection and use violations, found in testing organized under the 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS joint special campaign. The violations fall into four categories — undisclosed PI collection rules (7 apps), frequent demands for non-essential permissions (4), incomplete SDK disclosure (5), and, the dominant category at 14 of 30, failure to provide an effective account-cancellation function. DCC reads the notification as the CAC tier of the same campaign whose MIIT testing tier we covered in the Batch 56 brief: a broader perimeter that expressly includes mini-programs, a 15-working-day rectify-and-report deadline, and a clear signal that exit rights — account cancellation and deletion — are a 2026 testing priority.
- § 05 · AI-GOVERNANCE
China's First AI-Ghostwritten 'Seeding Post' Case — a Duty of Care for Generative-AI Providers
China's first unfair-competition case over AI batch-ghostwritten 'seeding posts' (种草笔记 — the staged, first-person product-recommendation notes that drive discovery commerce on Xiaohongshu/RED). On appeal, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ((2025) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 3998) held that the operators of an 'AI writing' tool ('AI写作鹅') that let users one-click-generate fake first-person Xiaohongshu notes — fabricating personal experiences and feelings — committed unfair competition under Article 2 (the general clause) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court built an explicit four-factor duty-of-care test for generative-AI providers (is it generative AI; does it target a specific scenario/another's product as its 'application layer'; is it directional and inducing; is it a paid, for-profit service), citing Articles 4(3), 5(1) and 22 of the Generative AI Services Interim Measures. Because the tool was named after Xiaohongshu, marketed to mass-produce on-brand 'seeding' copy, charged a membership fee, and shipped with no notice or reminder against the foreseeable misuse, the providers were at fault. The appeal court affirmed liability but cut damages from RMB 200,000 to RMB 100,000 on an 'inclusive and prudent' (包容审慎) view of AI, and reversed joint liability for the third defendant that merely hosted the download. DCC OCR'd the full judgment from the source images; this is our case brief for overseas counsel.
- § 06 · DATA-ECONOMY
China Halts Data-Asset ABS: Exchanges Pull the Handbrake on a ¥200 Billion Pipeline
According to reporting by Caixin (财新) and 财联社 circulated on 3–5 June 2026, the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges issued window guidance bringing the entire data-asset ABS (数据资产ABS) business chain to a stop — new filings turned away, approved-but-unissued deals told to pause, even issuance-approved deals told to delay. This halts a category that exploded from roughly 11 issuances raising ~¥4.6bn in 2025 to 21 issuances and ¥15.4bn in the first five months of 2026, with a declared pipeline approaching ¥200bn. The stated trigger is mission drift: pure-data-asset deals are under 2% of the market, while local-government financing vehicles (城投/LGFV) used the loose, fast 'data-asset' label to repackage existing non-standard debt as standardised bonds — data as window-dressing, with no real data cash flow behind it. DCC reads the event, the structural reasons, the three審查 gates the exchanges are expected to harden, and what it means for anyone underwriting, rating, or investing in China data-asset financing.