On 7 September 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) officially released and implemented the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”).
The Opinions, which contain 24 provisions, constitute the SPC’s first comprehensive judicial guidance specifically addressing civil and related disputes arising from the development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”).
Below is an overview of the Opinions:
The Opinions clarify the principles of attribution for AI tort liability, stipulating that where existing legislation does not expressly provide for strict or presumed liability, AI-related tort liability is to be determined on the basis of fault as set forth in the PRC Civil Code. In assessing whether an AI developer, provider or user was at fault, courts are instructed to consider, among other factors, the specific application scenario, the degree of autonomy and transparency of the AI system, the potential risks and their scope, the preventive measures taken by the relevant parties, and the user’s ability to foresee and control potential harm.
This approach is significant for AI developers and service providers. It indicates that the mere occurrence of harm caused by an AI system will not automatically result in liability. Instead, liability will depend on the specific circumstances and the respective ability of the parties to prevent or control the relevant risk.
China does NOT introduce a blanket strict liability regime for AI systems. Harm alone is insufficient for liability; fault remains the baseline unless special statutes mandate otherwise.
The Opinions clarify the determination and assumption of tort liability in various scenarios where AI is used to infringe upon personality rights (including the right to privacy), personal information rights and interests, and consumer rights and interests:
Personality Rights: The Opinions explicitly state that generating a virtual digital image or synthesised voice without the individual’s consent or using such assets to engage in improper conduct or spread false information that lowers an individual's social standing, constitutes a violation. People’s courts may, in accordance with the law, determine that the rights to name, portrait, voice, or reputation have been infringed. If the image of a deceased individual is produced or used without authorisation, resulting in damage to their rights and interests, their close relatives have the right to pursue civil liability.
The Opinions further address so-called “doxxing” and “human flesh searches” carried out using AI. Using AI to track and analyse public information for the purpose of obtaining or leaking private information or disturbing the peace of an individual's private life—as well as the unauthorised filming, peeping, or eavesdropping on private spaces and activities—shall be legally deemed an infringement of the right to privacy.
Where conduct in an AI application scenario infringes or is about to infringe upon the fundamental personality rights of natural persons, one may apply to the People’s Court in accordance with the law to issue an injunction against the infringement of personality rights, ordering the perpetrator to cease such conduct or ordering internet and AI service providers to cease providing the relevant services.
Personal Information Rights and Interests: The Opinions impose limits on the use of publicly available personal information for AI model training, clarifying that processing within reasonable limits—and where the individual has not objected—generally does not constitute an infringement. However, consent must be obtained in accordance with the law when such processing has a significant impact on an individual’s rights and interests.
This provision provides some degree of legal certainty for AI developers while making clear that “publicly available” does not mean “freely usable for any purpose”.
Consumer Rights and Interests: The Opinions strictly regulate the practice of “Big Data Differential Pricing” using algorithms, explicitly classifying the imposition of unreasonable differential treatment for the same product based on information such as consumption preferences and payment capacity as an infringement for which liability must be assumed. Furthermore, where the use of AI to impersonate celebrities for product promotion constitutes fraud, courts will, in accordance with the law, uphold consumers’ claims for punitive damages.
In addition, the Opinions clarify the tort liability by generative AI services providers, AI products liability, and liability for compensation in traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles equipped with driver-assistance features.
Prudent Determination of Tort Liability for Generative AI Service Providers: The Opinions stipulate that providers of generative AI services are subject to China’s statutory “notice-and-take-down” mechanism. When AI-generated content infringes upon rights or when users maliciously induce the generation of infringing content, if the service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures—such as halting generation or issuing blocking instructions—after receiving a valid notice containing the identity of the infringer and preliminary evidence, the service provider shall bear corresponding civil liability for the resulting damages in accordance with the law.
The Opinions therefore prioritise the distinct roles and control capacities of developers, service providers, and end users, steering away from imposing absolute liability indiscriminately on AI providers.
Product Liability for AI Products: The Opinions clarifie that AI products embodied in physical objects are subject to relevant product liability rules. Manufacturers and sellers bear liability for damages caused by product defects. The assessment requires a comprehensive consideration of factors such as autonomous learning capabilities, software updates, user control mechanisms, and compliance with standards, with a particular focus on whether the inherent limitations and foreseeable risks have been truthfully disclosed and clearly warned against.
Liability Arising from Autonomous and Assisted-driving Vehicles: Liability for accidents involving smart vehicles will be determined in accordance with the PRC Civil Code and the PRC Road Traffic Safety Law. Manufacturers or sellers will be held liable for damages caused by vehicle defects, while both parties share liability if a vehicle defect and the driver's negligence jointly cause the accident; furthermore, false advertising regarding automation levels or performance will be strictly penalised. People's courts have the authority to require data controllers—such as vehicle manufacturers, sellers, or operators— to provide authentic and complete records or data on autonomous or driver-assistance events to ascertain the cause of an accident.
The Opinions set forth five rules for adjudicating intellectual property disputes involving AI, covering copyright, open-source software, patents, technology contracts and data:
Copyright Infringement by AI-generated Content: People’s courts are instructed to consider factors such as the type of AI service, industry, sources of training data, the degree of participation by the parties involved, necessary measures taken, and profitability to determine the liability of developers, providers, and users, and will support the punishment of unfair competition practices—such as counterfeiting and false advertising—committed through the use of AI.
Liability for AI Open-source Software: People’s courts are instructed to consider factors such as open-source licence agreements, the specific content of rights restrictions, and security compliance measures, and the extent of information disclosure — to grant appropriate exemptions to open-source software developers and providers. Free-of-charge open-source software developers and providers who have clearly disclosed relevant risks may be exempted from liability for third-party infringements, subject to their own absence of fault.
AI-related Inventions: The Opinions confirm that AI-related inventions that follow natural laws and solve technical problems are eligible for patent protection. Only natural persons who make creative contributions to the substantive features of such inventions shall be recognised as inventors. AI systems per se cannot be named as inventors. The patent specification must be disclosed to a degree that enables a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention.
AI Technology Contract Performance: To determine liability for breach of contract in technology development, transfer, and licensing disputes, People’s courts are mandated to look strictly to contractual provisions, while balancing the unique characteristics of AI technology R&D alongside the developer’s fulfilment of reasonable diligence.
Use and Security of AI Data: The Opinions protect the rights of AI developers to data obtained through legitimate channels. Depending on the nature of the data, protection is provided under either the PRC Copyright Law or the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Furthermore, legal liability will be strictly pursued against those who use technical means to engage in monopolistic practices, abuse a dominant market position, or compromise the operational security of AI systems.
To accurately ascertain the facts of a case, People's courts may employ litigation guidance, order evidence preservation, apply unfavourable inferences against parties who refuse to submit evidence, and leverage the auxiliary roles of professionals, such as experts and technical investigators.
People's courts are instructed to focus on verifying the authenticity and scientific validity of big data analysis and blockchain-based evidence preservation, and comprehensively determining facts of infringement regarding AI-generated content from multiple dimensions, including prompt design, similarity of generated content, and model algorithms.
Parties submitting AI-generated pleadings, case law research or other materials must verify their accuracy and disclose the use of AI assistance to the court. They remain responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of the submitted material.
Criminal liability will be pursued for crimes such as using AI to commit fraud, infringing upon privacy, and illegally acquiring data, as well as behaviours involving the unauthorised cracking or bypassing of assisted driving monitoring systems that result in traffic accidents.
For enterprises developing, providing, or utilising AI technologies within China, the Opinions underline the imperative of robust compliance frameworks. These entail rigorous data governance, meticulous auditing of model training and development, clear-cut contractual risk allocation, transparent liability disclosures, and effective workflows for handling infringement notices.
Practical takeaways:
Review datasets for AI training in China: pay special attention to publicly sourced personal information and implement opt‑out mechanisms.
Operators of generative AI services should establish formal internal workflows to process statutory infringement notices.
Smart vehicle businesses need truthful disclosure of system limits and foreseeable risks, and secure retention of complete vehicle event data.
Build internal procedures for Chinese court filings: verify AI‑assisted legal materials and comply with the mandatory disclosure obligation for AI‑generated submissions.
While the practical efficacy of the Opinions will ultimately hinge on their case-by-case application by Chinese courts, they nonetheless serve as a pivotal bellwether, providing an important indication of how judicial practice in China is evolving in relation to AI-related disputes.
