Filed under unfair-competition
Every brief tagged "unfair-competition".
- § 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 · 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.