CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yue Dai, Zhenghao Li and Xiaokun Yuan, King & Wood
meet the food safety regulatory requirements and impairing public health. The People’s Court supported all the claims of the procuratorate and ordered the two defendants to remedy the damage caused by their products (by making payments to the State Treasury) and apologise to the public in the newspaper (see Case (2019) Yue Min Zhong No 379 decided by the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province). More recently, China is also exploring ways to encourage consumer associations to initiate public interest litiga - tion, with local procuratorates providing the necessary support during the proceedings (see 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims ). 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims There have been many published decisions concern - ing product liability in China recently. The cases dis - cussed below – concerning generative artificial intel - ligence, automated driving, public interest litigation, punitive damages and product defects – are signifi - cant for judicial practice, especially the interpretation of key concepts and resolution of new issues arising from emerging technologies. Product Liability Not Applicable to Generative Artificial Intelligence Services On 29 December 2025, Hangzhou Internet Court of Zhejiang Province published a typical case, under - scoring that generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) should not be considered a “product”, and therefore the strict liability rules for product liability in tort should not apply. As the case brief reveals, a user of a GenAI tool inquired about requirements for applying for a col - lege, but was provided with inaccurate information. The user alleged that the false information supplied by the GenAI produced a misleading effect, caused damage, and requested the service provider to com - pensate for the losses they suffered. The question before the court was whether tort dis - putes concerning GenAI services should be subject to general tort rules or product liability rules. The court held that GenAI is not a “product” and product liability rules do not apply, because GenAI does not serve any concrete or specific purpose and could not be
practically tested based on any quality standards. The court observed that application of strict liability could unreasonably burden the GenAI service provider. The court further noted that the content generated by the GenAI should also not be subject to product liability rules, given that the service provider could not prop - erly foresee or control the content generated and such content does not normally pose a high risk. Therefore, the court applied the general tort rules and assessed whether the service provider was at fault for the inaccurate information provided by the GenAI tool. The court followed a three-factor test: (i) whether the service provider conducted strict review of ille - gal content; (ii) whether it provided explicit disclaim - ers on limitations of GenAI tools; and (iii) whether it adopted practical measures to improve accuracy of the information generated. The court then found that the service provider properly fulfilled its duty of care and had no fault for the misinformation. Therefore, the court dismissed the claims, and the decision was not appealed by either party. Determination of Product Defects in Automated Driving Since the establishment of the “People’s Court Case Database”, several product liability cases have been selected as “Cases for Reference”, indicating their referential value in adjudication. Recently, two cases concerning the application of the unreasonable dan - ger standard in determining product defects of driver assistance systems in automated driving have been added to the database. In (2021) Xiang 1202 Min Chu No 7684 (decided by Hecheng District Court, Huaihua), a consumer pur - chased an electric vehicle (EV) relying on the mar - keting claims made by the merchant concerning the functions of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system. However, the consumer later found that the AEB system of the EV faced substantial limitations when being used, which failed to meet the promise made in the marketing materials. Despite the seller’s disclaimer made in the product manual stating that the AEB system was for driver assistance and could not replace the driver, the court held that the system could not meet the “consumer’s reasonable expectations for product safety” and therefore posed an “unreasonable
87 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook