Filed under judicial
Every brief tagged "judicial".
- § 01 · PIPL
When Is a Business Partner a 'Joint Handler'? A Shanghai Insurance-Policy Leak Works Through PIPL Article 20
A consumer bought insurance through a broker, on a platform company's website, from an insurer — and later found her full policy, personal details included, retrievable by searching her own phone number. The Shanghai judgment behind case (2024)沪01民终410号 had to decide which of the three companies were 'joint handlers' of her personal information under PIPL Article 20, and therefore jointly and severally liable. Writing on 数据何规, Lu Ying and Zhang Bingbin work through the allocation: the platform operating the website was the direct handler; the broker that steered the purchase through a site it presented as its own was a joint handler; the insurer — with an independent, contract-related purpose and no role in downstream processing decisions — was not. The article distills three identification factors (common purpose and conduct; pre-agreed division of roles as joint determination; the appearance presented to the user), separates joint processing from sharing and entrusted processing, and argues that PIPL Article 20(2) is an independent claim basis: a victim can sue all joint handlers for joint and several damages directly. For any broker/platform/underwriter or comparable multi-party data chain, this is the operative test.
- § 02 · AI-GOVERNANCE
China's First 'AI Hallucination' Tort Judgment — GenAI Is a Service, Not a Product, and the Chatbot's '¥100,000 Promise' Binds No One
The Hangzhou Internet Court has decided China's first 'AI hallucination' (AI幻觉) tort case — written into the Supreme People's Court's 2026 work report to the NPC. A user asking a chatbot about college applications was told, across seven rounds, that a non-existent campus existed; when finally shown the official website, the model 'apologised' and 'promised' to pay ¥100,000, even generating a fake lawsuit template telling him to sue. He did. The court dismissed every claim and, in doing so, laid down the first judicial articulation of China's generative-AI liability framework: (1) an AI model is not a civil subject, so its 'promise' is no declaration of intent — and is not attributable to the provider either; (2) generative AI is a service, not a product, so fault liability under Civil Code Article 1165 applies, not product liability's no-fault rule under Article 1202; (3) there is no result-based duty to guarantee accuracy for ordinary inaccurate output — only a process duty of care (conspicuous AI-content labelling plus industry-standard accuracy measures), which the provider had discharged; and (4) no proven damage, no causation. For any company deploying GenAI to the Chinese public, this is the operating liability surface and the evidentiary playbook.
- § 03 · JUDICIAL
Datatang v. Yinmu — China's First Ruling on a Data-IP Registration Certificate, and Why Open-Sourced Data Is Still Protected
A consolidated case study of 数据堂诉隐木科技 (Datatang v. Yinmu) — the Beijing IP Court's June 2024 appeal ruling, widely called China's first case on the evidentiary effect of a data-IP registration certificate. The dispute: Datatang built voice datasets for AI training, open-sourced some under a license; Yinmu took and redistributed them in the same data-services market. DCC synthesizes four commentaries (the case report, a Tsinghua analysis, and two Shenzhen Data Exchange DEXC+ deep-dives) into the four holdings that matter for overseas counsel: (1) a data-IP registration certificate is prima facie evidence of property-type interests and lawful sourcing — but not an absolute property right (property-rights-statutism); (2) open-sourced data, though neither trade secret nor copyrightable compilation, is protectable under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law's general clause; (3) the protection hierarchy (compilation work → trade secret → AUCL Art. 2); and (4) whether the taker honored the open-source license is the hinge for 'improper conduct.'