Evan Lee Salim
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of China has officially issued a comprehensive set of judicial guidelines aimed at regulating the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence (AI) and providing a clear legal framework for resolving civil disputes. Released on September 7, 2026, the document, titled "Opinions on the Lawful Handling of Civil Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence," outlines the judiciary’s strategy to balance technological innovation with social stability and the protection of individual rights. These guidelines arrive as China intensifies its pursuit of "New Quality Productive Forces," a national policy initiative designed to drive economic growth through high-tech industries and advanced manufacturing.
The new judicial framework is grounded in a robust suite of existing Chinese laws, including the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Data Security Law, the Copyright Law, the Law on the Protection of Personal Information (PIPL), and the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests. By synthesizing these statutes into actionable judicial opinions, the SPC seeks to provide lower courts with the necessary tools to handle the increasingly complex litigation arising from generative AI, autonomous systems, and algorithmic decision-making.
A New Era of Algorithmic Governance
The SPC’s guidelines emphasize a "human-centric" approach to AI governance. The court asserts that while AI is a primary driver of the next industrial revolution, its development must remain within the bounds of safety, reliability, and fairness. The guidelines explicitly call for the prevention of "algorithmic discrimination" and require that AI systems remain controllable and transparent.
A central pillar of the opinions is the establishment of liability principles. The SPC clarifies that in the absence of specific statutory provisions for strict liability or presumed fault, courts should generally apply the principle of fault-based liability under the Civil Code. When determining fault, judges are instructed to consider the specific application scenario, the degree of autonomy of the AI system, the technical transparency of the model, and the potential risks involved. This nuanced approach recognizes that a developer of a low-risk recommendation algorithm should not be held to the same standard as a developer of a high-stakes medical diagnostic tool.
Chronology of China’s AI Regulatory Evolution
The release of these judicial opinions marks a significant milestone in a decade-long effort by Chinese authorities to regulate the digital economy and emerging technologies.
- 2017: The State Council issues the "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan," setting a roadmap for China to become a global AI leader by 2030.
- 2021: The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) is enacted, creating one of the world’s strictest frameworks for data privacy and algorithmic transparency.
- 2022: Provisions on the Administration of Algorithm Recommendations for Internet Information Services take effect, targeting "information cocoons" and unfair price discrimination.
- 2023: China implements the "Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services," becoming one of the first major economies to regulate ChatGPT-style technologies.
- 2024–2025: Local internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou handle a surge in cases involving AI-generated artwork and "deepfake" personality rights violations.
- September 2026: The SPC issues the current comprehensive opinions to unify judicial standards nationwide as AI moves from experimental stages to widespread industrial application.
Protecting Personality Rights: Deepfakes and "AI Resurrection"
One of the most innovative sections of the guidelines addresses the ethical and legal challenges posed by generative AI regarding personality rights. The SPC has taken a firm stance against the unauthorized use of an individual’s likeness or voice through "AI face-swapping" or "AI voice-cloning."
Crucially, the guidelines address the controversial trend of "AI resurrection," where generative AI is used to create digital avatars of deceased individuals. The SPC stipulates that using a deceased person’s name, likeness, or voice to create a digital image requires the consent of close relatives and must not infringe upon the dignity of the deceased or violate public order and good customs. This provision responds to a series of high-profile incidents in China where fans or commercial entities "revived" deceased celebrities without family authorization, sparking intense public debate over digital ethics.
Furthermore, the guidelines prohibit the use of AI for "cyber-doxxing" or unauthorized "human flesh searches." Any entity that uses AI to track, analyze, or leak private information—such as phone numbers, social media accounts, or private activities—will be held liable for infringing upon the right to privacy.
Supporting Data and Market Context
The necessity for these guidelines is underscored by the rapid growth of the AI sector in China. According to data from the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT), the core AI industry in China reached a value of approximately 500 billion RMB (approx. $70 billion USD) by 2024, with a growth rate exceeding 15% annually.
Judicial data further highlights the urgency:
- Litigation Volume: AI-related civil cases in China’s three specialized internet courts saw a 40% year-on-year increase between 2024 and 2025.
- Dispute Categories: Approximately 45% of these cases involved intellectual property (IP) disputes, while 30% concerned personality rights and 25% related to consumer rights and data privacy.
- Public Sentiment: A 2025 survey by the China Consumers Association found that 62% of respondents were "highly concerned" about algorithmic price discrimination, often referred to as "big data price gouging."
Consumer Protection and Algorithmic Fairness
The SPC has directly targeted "big data price discrimination," a practice where e-commerce platforms use AI to charge different prices to different users for the same product based on their purchasing history or device type. The guidelines state that if a business uses algorithms to implement unreasonable differential treatment in transaction prices or conditions, infringing upon a consumer’s right to know and right to choose, the court must hold the business liable.
In cases involving consumer fraud, the guidelines allow for "punitive damages." If an AI system is used to simulate human "live-streamers" or "celebrity endorsers" to deceive consumers into purchasing goods, consumers may claim compensation under Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which provides for damages up to three times the purchase price.
Intellectual Property and the "Creative" Machine
The guidelines provide essential clarity on the copyrightability of AI-generated content (AIGC). While maintaining that AI itself cannot be an "author," the SPC suggests that if a human user provides significant creative input—through the design of prompts, parameters, and iterative refinement—the resulting output may be protected under copyright law.
For developers, the guidelines offer a "safe harbor" for training data under certain conditions. Processing personal information that is already legally public for the purpose of model training is generally not considered an infringement, provided it stays within a reasonable scope and the individual has not explicitly refused such use. This is seen as a major win for the domestic AI industry, as it reduces the legal risks associated with large-scale data scraping required for Large Language Models (LLMs).
Autonomous Driving and Product Liability
As autonomous vehicles move toward L3 and L4 levels of automation, the SPC has clarified the distribution of liability in traffic accidents. If an accident is caused by a defect in the vehicle’s AI system, the manufacturer or seller will be held liable under product liability laws.
The guidelines also empower courts to demand data from manufacturers to determine the cause of an accident. Manufacturers, sellers, and operators who control the vehicle’s data must provide accurate and complete records of the autonomous driving event when required by the court. This "data transparency" requirement is intended to solve the evidentiary challenges faced by victims who lack the technical means to prove a system failure.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Reactions
The release has drawn a range of responses from legal experts and industry leaders.
Professor Zhang Wei, a legal scholar at Tsinghua University, noted: "These opinions represent a sophisticated attempt to codify the ‘ethics of the algorithm.’ By focusing on the ‘AI resurrection’ and ‘deepfake’ issues, the SPC is acknowledging that technology is not just an economic tool but a social force that impacts human dignity."
A spokesperson for a leading Beijing-based AI laboratory stated: "The distinction between open-source and closed-source liability is particularly helpful. The guidelines recognize that open-source developers who provide code modules for free should not be held indefinitely liable for how third parties later misuse those modules. This provides the legal certainty needed to continue contributing to the global open-source community."
Consumer rights advocates have welcomed the focus on "big data price discrimination," though some argue that the burden of proof remains high for individual consumers to prove that an algorithm was acting unfairly.
Broader Impact and Implications
The SPC’s move is expected to have far-reaching implications for both the domestic and international AI landscape. Domestically, it provides a "green light" for innovation by defining the boundaries of legal risk, potentially accelerating the deployment of AI in sectors like healthcare, finance, and logistics.
Internationally, China’s proactive judicial approach positions it as a major player in the global conversation on AI governance. By establishing detailed rules on personality rights and generative AI, China is creating a domestic precedent that may influence international standards, particularly in jurisdictions looking for alternatives to the European Union’s AI Act or the more decentralized approach of the United States.
Furthermore, the guidelines promote international judicial cooperation. The SPC has expressed a willingness to engage in exchanges with foreign courts to build a "fair, reasonable, and inclusive" global AI governance system. This suggests that as AI disputes become increasingly cross-border, China intends to be a leading voice in shaping the private international law of the digital age.
In conclusion, the "Opinions on the Lawful Handling of Civil Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence" serve as a comprehensive manual for the judicial system to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. By prioritizing human rights and safety while simultaneously carving out space for industrial growth, the Supreme People’s Court has laid the groundwork for a legal environment where "New Quality Productive Forces" can thrive under the rule of law.
Layla Zulfa
Dwi Wanna
