CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Zhang Yunyan, Yang Dong, Shang Zicheng and Ye Xin, Beijing Jincheng Tongda & Neal (Shanghai) Law Firm
These differing judicial approaches suggest that Chi - nese courts are adopting an increasingly cautious approach towards determining the copyrightability of AI-generated content, placing greater emphasis on originality and the extent of human creative contribu - tion. From a practical perspective, businesses should maintain comprehensive records of prompts, param - eter settings and subsequent human modifications in order to demonstrate authorship and ownership should disputes arise. Personal information protection Chinese courts have continued to strengthen judicial protection of personal information by closely scrutinis - ing how online platforms collect and process users’ personal data. In one Guiding Case issued by the Supreme People’s Court, a user alleged that an online platform had unlawfully required users to provide excessive per - sonal information as a condition for accessing its ser - vices. The platform argued that such information was necessary for personalised services and had been voluntarily provided by users. The court rejected this argument, holding that only a user’s mobile phone number was necessary for the provision of the platform’s core services. Addi - tional profile information did not satisfy the necessity requirement, and users’ consent obtained through mandatory data collection without a genuine opt-out mechanism could not be regarded as valid consent. This case confirms that platform operators cannot compel users to consent to the collection of non- essential personal information by making such con - sent a prerequisite for accessing basic services. In practice, businesses should regularly review their authorisation mechanisms to ensure compliance with the principle of data minimisation and avoid relying on default consent, mandatory authorisations or similar practices that may undermine the validity of users’ consent. Data security Chinese courts have made it clear that online plat - forms owe a statutory duty to safeguard users’ per -
sonal data and may be held liable where inadequate security measures result in data-related harm. In one representative case, a user who had booked airline tickets through an online travel platform sub - sequently received fraudulent text messages contain - ing accurate flight and passenger information. The Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court held that the passenger’s itinerary and mobile phone number constituted protected personal information. As the platform failed to demonstrate that it had implement - ed adequate access controls, encryption measures and security management procedures, it was found to have breached its statutory duty to protect users’ personal information and was held liable for the result - ing losses. This case confirms that publishing a privacy policy alone is insufficient to discharge a platform’s data protection obligations. Businesses are expected to implement substantive technical and organisational safeguards, including end-to-end encryption, access controls, audit logging and incident response mecha - nisms. In practice, companies should establish com - prehensive data security management systems cover - ing the entire data life cycle rather than relying solely on contractual or policy-based compliance measures. Unfair competition in the digital economy In recent years, Chinese courts have taken an increas - ingly restrictive approach towards business practices that misuse IT to distort fair market competition. In one representative case, a technology company operating a short-video platform brought an unfair competition claim after another company reproduced substantial amounts of its platform data, including vid - eos, user profiles and comments, without authorisa - tion. The Beijing Haidian District People’s Court held that although the aggregated platform data did not constitute a copyright-protected compilation, it nev - ertheless represented a protectable commercial inter - est arising from the operator’s substantial investment. The unauthorised large-scale extraction and use of such data, which effectively substituted the claimant’s services and diverted user traffic, constituted unfair competition.
39
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook