Muslim
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of the People’s Republic of China has officially released a comprehensive set of judicial opinions designed to standardize the adjudication of disputes arising from the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (AI) sector. Issued on September 7, 2026, these guidelines are anchored in a robust legislative framework, including the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Data Security Law, and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL). The document seeks to implement the strategic directives of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, aiming to safeguard the development of "new quality productive forces" while ensuring that AI technology remains safe, controllable, and fair. By providing a clear roadmap for people’s courts at all levels, the SPC intends to balance the promotion of technological innovation with the rigorous protection of civil rights and national security.
Framework for AI Governance and Judicial Principles
The SPC’s opinions establish a dual-track priority: fostering an environment conducive to high-tech industrial growth while maintaining a "bottom line" of safety and ethical standards. The guidelines emphasize a "people-oriented" approach, urging the judiciary to proactively address the societal risks and ethical challenges posed by algorithmic decision-making. A central theme is the prevention of algorithmic discrimination and the protection of the individual’s right to know and choose when interacting with automated systems.
To support the real economy, the SPC advocates for "tolerance and caution." This principle encourages judicial bodies to protect the rights of innovators and the outcomes of AI research, even when facing experimental failures. Furthermore, the guidelines call for the regulation of monopolistic behaviors and unfair competition, ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have equal access to the AI development ecosystem.
Chronology of China’s AI Regulatory Evolution
The release of these 2026 opinions marks a significant milestone in a decade-long effort by Chinese authorities to codify the digital economy. The timeline of this regulatory journey provides essential context for the current judicial stance:
- 2017: The State Council issues the "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan," setting a goal for China to become the world’s primary AI innovation center by 2030.
- 2021: The implementation of the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) provides the foundational legal pillars for digital rights.
- 2022: The "Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis Internet Information Services" are introduced to manage synthetic media and deepfakes.
- 2023: The "Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services" take effect, focusing on content moderation and data training ethics.
- 2024–2025: A surge in local court cases involving AI-generated content (AIGC) and "AI face-swapping" prompts the need for a unified national judicial interpretation.
- September 2026: The SPC issues the current comprehensive opinions to harmonize disparate local rulings and address advanced challenges like "AI resurrections" and autonomous vehicle liability.
Tort Liability and the Protection of Personality Rights
One of the most granular sections of the opinions addresses the rise of generative AI technologies, specifically "AI face-swapping," "voice cloning," and the controversial practice of "AI resurrections"—the digital recreation of deceased individuals. The SPC clarifies that using AI to manipulate the image or voice of a natural person without consent constitutes an infringement of personality rights.
In cases of "digital resurrections," the courts are instructed to support claims from the deceased’s relatives if the unauthorized virtual image harms the deceased’s reputation or name. Furthermore, the guidelines take a strict stance on "doxxing" and "unmasking," where AI is used to scrape public data to intrude upon personal privacy or disrupt the tranquility of a citizen’s life.
Regarding liability, the SPC differentiates between fault-based and no-fault responsibility. In the absence of specific laws, Article 1165 of the Civil Code—the principle of fault—will apply. When assessing fault, judges must consider the autonomy of the AI, the transparency of the technology, and whether the provider took feasible technical measures to prevent the harm. Generative AI service providers are held to a "notice-and-takedown" standard; if they fail to act after being notified of infringing content, they will bear civil responsibility.
Intellectual Property and the "Inventor" Status
The opinions provide much-needed clarity on the intersection of AI and Intellectual Property (IP) law. The SPC maintains that while AI can be a tool for creation, patent-eligible inventions must involve a substantive contribution from a natural person. If a human user utilizes AI to solve a technical problem and makes a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention, that human is recognized as the inventor.
Regarding copyright, the guidelines address the complex issue of training data. Generally, using publicly disclosed personal information for AI training within a "reasonable range" does not constitute an infringement, provided the individual has not explicitly refused. However, if the use has a major impact on personal rights, explicit consent is mandatory. For AI-generated content that mirrors existing works, the court will hold users liable if they knew of the prior work and generated a substantially similar output without a reasonable defense.
Autonomous Vehicles and Product Liability
As self-driving technology moves from testing to commercialization, the SPC has outlined clear rules for traffic accidents involving autonomous and assisted-driving vehicles. Liability will be determined based on the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law.
Key provisions include:
- Product Defects: If a defect in the AI system causes an accident, manufacturers and sellers are liable for compensation.
- Combined Fault: In assisted-driving scenarios where both a product defect and driver error contribute to an accident, both the driver and the manufacturer may bear concurrent responsibility.
- Transparency Requirements: Courts are empowered to request manufacturers to provide "true and complete" records of the self-driving data to determine the cause of an accident.
- False Advertising: Manufacturers who mislead consumers regarding the level of automation or "intelligence" of a vehicle will face civil responsibility under the Consumer Protection Law.
Supporting Data and Economic Impact
The necessity of these judicial opinions is underscored by the rapid growth of the AI sector in China. According to data from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), China’s core AI industry was valued at over 500 billion RMB by 2024, with more than 4,500 AI enterprises.
Legal analytics show a corresponding rise in litigation. Between 2023 and 2025, AI-related disputes in major tech hubs like Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou increased by an estimated 45% annually. These cases primarily revolved around portrait rights in deepfakes and copyright ownership of AI-generated art. The SPC’s move to centralize rules is expected to reduce legal uncertainty, which industry analysts suggest could save the sector billions in compliance and litigation costs over the next decade.
Judicial Integrity and the Use of AI in Courts
The SPC also addresses the "internal" use of AI within the legal system. While encouraging the use of technology to assist in evidence review—such as using blockchain for data verification—the opinions warn against the misuse of generative AI by litigants.
The guidelines explicitly prohibit the use of AI to fabricate evidence or "fake litigation." Litigants who submit AI-generated documents, such as case retrieval reports, must verify their accuracy and disclose the use of AI assistance to the court. Failure to do so, especially if it leads to the obstruction of justice, can result in fines, detention, or criminal prosecution.
Official Responses and Implications
Legal experts and industry stakeholders have largely welcomed the opinions as a pragmatic step toward a mature digital rule of law. A spokesperson for a leading Chinese technology association noted, "The distinction between open-source and closed-source models in the allocation of liability is particularly vital. It provides a ‘safe harbor’ for developers who contribute to the public good, ensuring that the open-source community isn’t stifled by the actions of third-party users."
International observers view the SPC’s guidelines as a signal of China’s intent to lead in global AI governance. By emphasizing "international judicial exchanges and cooperation," the SPC is positioning China’s civil law approach as a viable model for addressing the transnational nature of AI disputes.
In summary, the 2026 SPC opinions represent a sophisticated attempt to codify the "wild west" of artificial intelligence. By balancing the need for industrial "quality productive forces" with the protection of the "people’s well-being," the Chinese judiciary is creating a structured environment where innovation can flourish under the watchful eye of the law. As AI continues to permeate the real economy—from autonomous trucks on highways to digital assistants in the home—these guidelines will serve as the primary legal compass for one of the world’s most significant technological landscapes.
Lina Irawan
Neng Nana
