On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference to release the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Lawfully Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence.” Attending the conference were Vice President Tao Kaiyuan, Director of the Research Office Zhou Jiahai, Chief Judge of the Third Civil Division Li Jian, and Deputy Director of the Research Office Si Yanli, who also fielded questions from reporters. The event was chaired by Ji Zhongbiao, Spokesperson for the Supreme People’s Court. During the conference, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan unveiled the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Lawfully Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence.”

The photo shows the press conference venue.

On September 7, the Supreme People’s Court publicly released the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Lawfully Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”). This document represents an important measure by the Supreme People’s Court to thoroughly study and implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, fully apply Xi Jinping’s thought on the rule of law, earnestly put into practice General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important ideas on building a cyber power, and comprehensively implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the resolutions of all plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee. It aims to provide high‑quality judicial services to accelerate the development of new‑type productive forces. The following provides a brief overview of the background, guiding principles, and main contents of the Opinions.

I. Background to the Drafting of the “Opinions”

At present, global innovation in artificial intelligence is experiencing an unprecedented period of dynamism. Intelligent technologies—characterized by the pervasive connectivity of all things and human–machine collaboration—are converging to unleash tremendous potential, offering vast opportunities while posing significant governance challenges. In recent years, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has attached great importance to the sound development of AI. In April 2025, during the twentieth collective study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “We must grasp the trends and principles governing the development of AI, accelerate the formulation and improvement of relevant laws and regulations, policies and institutional frameworks, application standards, and ethical guidelines, and establish systems for technological monitoring, risk early warning, and emergency response, so as to ensure that AI is safe, reliable, and controllable.” The Outline of the 15th Five-Year Plan once again underscores the need to refine laws, regulations, policies, application norms, and ethical codes in the field of AI, and to explore mechanisms for determining the ownership of rights to AI-generated content and for clarifying the rights and responsibilities of developers, operators, and users. Recently, the State Council issued the “15th Five-Year Plan for Intellectual Property Protection and Utilization,” which calls for improving intellectual property protection rules related to algorithms, AI-generated works, and the development of the platform economy, and for implementing a two-way empowerment initiative that integrates intellectual property with AI.

How the judiciary can fully exercise its functions, promote the sound development of artificial intelligence, support national and social governance, and ensure high-quality economic and social development is a pressing issue of our times—and a question that the people’s courts must address. To thoroughly implement the CPC Central Committee’s series of important decisions and arrangements on the development and governance of artificial intelligence, the Supreme People’s Court, drawing on a careful review of judicial practice and extensive consultation and in-depth research, has formulated these Opinions. Grounded in both problem‑oriented and value‑oriented principles, the Opinions focus on the most salient issues in AI‑related adjudication that have drawn widespread attention from all sectors of society. In the context of rapidly evolving technological change, they seek to uphold the inherent rules of justice while clearly delineating legal red lines, thereby fostering innovation and development in AI technology and ensuring that this “thoroughbred” of artificial intelligence can both run swiftly and maintain steady progress.

The “Opinions” represent the first-ever judicial adjudication guidelines on artificial intelligence issued by the country’s highest judicial body, embodying “Chinese judicial wisdom” in advancing the responsible and beneficial development of AI worldwide. During the drafting process, the document received robust support and assistance from relevant central authorities, representatives of the AI industry, academic experts, and other stakeholders across society. As such, the “Opinions” not only encapsulate practical experience gained in judicial practice but also reflect the collective wisdom of diverse sectors of society.

II. Main Considerations of the “Opinions”

First, we resolutely implemented the decisions and arrangements of the CPC Central Committee and provided robust support for the in-depth implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy. By formulating judicial adjudication rules and guidelines on artificial intelligence, the document ensures that the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important instructions and directives on AI, as well as the CPC Central Committee’s requirements for strengthening AI development and governance, are effectively implemented at every level and in meticulous detail. The Opinions strengthen judicial protection for AI‑related innovations, innovation entities, innovative activities, and the innovation ecosystem; they delineate clear, scientifically sound boundaries of conduct; and they draw firm legal red lines and bottom lines. In this way, fair and efficient justice will foster technological exploration and industrial innovation, thereby unlocking to the fullest the immense potential of AI to drive high‑quality economic and social development.

Second, strictly adhere to the legislative spirit and ensure the uniform and correct application of the law. Artificial intelligence is an emerging technology, and the legal issues it raises are likewise novel; at present, China has not yet enacted a dedicated AI-specific law. In response, the “Opinions” adhere to the principle of adapting to contemporary developments and making full and effective use of existing legal provisions. Drawing on relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Copyright Law, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Civil Procedure Law, and other statutes, the document offers conceptual and normative guidance for the lawful adjudication of AI‑related disputes. For example, it clarifies the principles of liability in AI‑related tort cases, whether the use of publicly available personal information in model training constitutes an infringement, the definition of AI products and the criteria for identifying defects, the legal liabilities associated with open-source software, and the patentability of AI‑based inventions and creations.

Third, we will coordinate development and security, upholding a people-centered approach and ensuring that AI is used for the greater good. The Opinions respect the principles governing scientific and technological innovation and the practical development of the artificial intelligence industry, adopting judicial rules that are consistent with both the spirit of laws and policies and the inherent logic of technological progress, thereby supporting both scientific‑technological and industrial innovation. In light of the potential harms and the nature and magnitude of risks posed by AI in different application contexts, legal liability is accurately determined in accordance with the law. The Opinions also seek to appropriately address the regulatory conflicts, social risks, and ethical challenges arising from the advancement of AI technologies, emphasizing the prevention and elimination of algorithmic discrimination and the prevention and regulation of abuses of AI that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the public. By leveraging the guiding role of judicial adjudication, the Opinions aim to actively steer AI toward enhancing public well‑being and to strengthen judicial protection of civil rights and interests in the digital age.

Fourth, we will remain problem‑oriented and focus on practical applications to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of our documents. The Opinions, grounded in the adjudicative functions of the courts, precisely address issues of widespread public concern—such as “AI face-swapping and voice synthesis,” infringement arising from “AI hallucinations,” “online box‑opening” practices, “big data price discrimination,” autonomous driving, and model training—by articulating clear substantive rules for adjudication and procedural guidelines for AI‑related disputes. As for matters on which consensus remains elusive at this stage, the Opinions adopt a cautious approach, leaving them open for further empirical exploration and reserving the possibility of definitive guidance through appropriate channels once conditions are ripe.

III. Main Contents of the “Opinions”

The “Opinions” are divided into five sections, comprising a total of 24 articles. The main contents include:

First, it explicitly sets forth the guiding principles and fundamental tenets for adjudicating disputes involving artificial intelligence. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important expositions on artificial intelligence provide the fundamental guiding principles for people’s courts in adjudicating AI‑related disputes and in clarifying judicial rules. The first part of the Opinions (Articles 1 and 2) sets forth the guiding ideology that must be adhered to in handling such cases, explicitly articulating three core principles—putting people first, supporting innovative development, and fortifying the security safeguards—thereby ensuring that judicial decisions in AI‑related disputes consistently uphold the correct political orientation and effectively implement the principle of balancing development with security while promoting both innovation and law-based governance.

Second, regulate, in accordance with the law, infringing acts involving the use of artificial intelligence. Part II of the Opinions (Articles 3–11) first clarifies the principles for attributing liability in cases involving AI‑related torts, and then, addressing various scenarios—such as infringements of personality rights, personal information rights, and consumer rights—it sets forth the criteria for determining and allocating tort liability. In addition, it explicitly defines the tort liability of providers of generative AI services, product liability arising from AI, and compensation obligations in traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles equipped with driver-assistance systems.

Third, adjudicate intellectual property disputes involving artificial intelligence in accordance with the law. Part III of the Opinions (Articles 12–16) sets forth specific provisions for the adjudication of intellectual property disputes involving artificial intelligence, covering five key areas: the determination of liability for infringement, legal liability in relation to open-source software, patent grant and validity confirmation, performance of technology contracts, and standards for data use. These provisions proactively address the new issues and challenges posed by the rapid advancement of AI technologies to judicial protection of intellectual property, seeking a balance between fostering innovation in AI and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of right holders, thereby providing clear judicial guidelines to support the high-quality development of AI and ensure a high level of security.

Fourth, we will explore ways to refine procedural rules and impose lawful penalties on unlawful and criminal conduct. Part IV of the Opinions (Articles 17–20) primarily comprises two key aspects: First, in light of the highly technical and specialized nature of AI‑related disputes, it seeks to refine the rules for ascertaining facts and reviewing evidence in such cases, while also clearly stipulating legal sanctions for conduct that undermines judicial order, such as improper use of AI to obtain evidence or the submission of false materials. Second, it sets out general principles for the lawful punishment of all types of criminal acts committed through the use of artificial intelligence.

Fifth, we will improve and refine the mechanisms for adjudicating disputes involving artificial intelligence. The “Opinions” cannot cover all types of AI-related cases; many issues will require further exploration and accumulation through judicial practice. Moreover, AI governance is a systemic undertaking that calls for coordinated efforts across all stakeholders and the implementation of multiple measures. In this regard, Part V of the “Opinions” (Articles 21–24) sets forth provisions on preventing and resolving AI‑related disputes, strengthening research and deliberation, providing case‑based guidance and supervising adjudication, as well as enhancing interdepartmental collaboration and international judicial exchanges and cooperation.

In his keynote address at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “As artificial intelligence technology advances by leaps and bounds, it is all the more crucial to firmly orient it toward promoting human well-being and serving the common good; to calibrate regulatory and governance measures with precision; and to promptly refine safeguards against unintended consequences.” Going forward, the Supreme People’s Court will continue to thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, remain committed to a people-centered approach, and, taking the issuance and implementation of the “Opinions” as an opportunity, persistently strengthen adjudication of AI-related disputes. It will fully leverage the normative and guiding role of judicial rulings to ensure that AI technologies are developed in a manner that upholds ethical principles and benefits humanity, thereby providing robust judicial support and guarantees for advancing China’s modernization and realizing the great cause of national rejuvenation.

★

Fa Fa [2026] No. 10

Supreme People’s Court

Opinions on the Lawful Adjudication of Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence

In order to comprehensively implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, to provide rigorous and impartial judicial services that support the accelerated development of new‑type productive forces, and to guide people’s courts at all levels in adjudicating disputes involving artificial intelligence in accordance with the law, and in light of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, and taking into account the actual practices of people’s courts in adjudication, the following guidelines are hereby issued.

I. General Requirements

(1) Guiding Principles

We will remain guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping’s thought on the rule of law, and earnestly apply General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important ideas on building a cyber power. We will deeply recognize that artificial intelligence is a key driving force behind the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, uphold the principle of balancing development with security, and integrate the promotion of innovation with law-based governance. We will adjudicate AI-related disputes in a fair and lawful manner, thereby enhancing the safety, reliability, controllability, and fairness of AI technologies, and providing robust judicial services and safeguards to advance China’s modernization and the great cause of national rejuvenation.

(II) Basic Principles

Adhere to a people-centered approach. Leverage the guiding role of judicial rulings to actively steer artificial intelligence toward enhancing public well-being, and strengthen judicial safeguards for citizens’ rights and interests in the digital age. Actively yet prudently explore and refine judicial rules and institutional frameworks in the AI domain—covering algorithmic ethics and regulatory norms—while making full and effective use of existing legal provisions. Properly address the regulatory conflicts, social risks, and ethical challenges arising from advances in AI technology; promote the improvement of corporate social responsibility systems in the AI sector; prioritize the prevention and elimination of algorithmic discrimination; ensure, in accordance with the law, individuals’ rights to information and choice in automated decision-making; and prevent and regulate the misuse of AI technologies that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the public, thereby advancing AI that serves the people and upholds ethical principles.

Supporting innovative development. Respecting the principles governing scientific and technological innovation and the practical evolution of the artificial intelligence industry, we provide judicial rulings that align with both the spirit of laws and policies and the inherent logic of technological progress, thereby fostering both scientific and industrial innovation. We are exploring new avenues for judicial protection of rights and interests, steadily strengthening safeguards for AI‑related innovations, innovators, innovative practices, and the broader innovation ecosystem. Adopting a tolerant yet prudent approach, we strike a balance between protecting individual and collective rights and promoting the growth of the technology sector, creating an environment that encourages exploration and embraces failure. We regulate, in accordance with the law, monopolistic practices and unfair competition facilitated by AI technologies, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders enjoy equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal access to the rules governing the development and application of AI. We also reinforce equal protection of the rights and interests of small and medium‑sized enterprises and other market participants. By adjudicating AI‑related disputes in a lawful, impartial, and efficient manner, we actively guide and promote the deep integration of the internet, big data, AI, and the real economy, helping to nurture and expand the AI industry and unlocking the full potential of AI to drive high‑quality economic and social development.

Safeguard the safety baseline. In light of the specific harms that artificial intelligence may inflict on the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects across different application scenarios, as well as the nature and magnitude of the associated risks, legal liability shall be accurately determined in accordance with the law. Distinguish between general-purpose and specialized, open-source and closed-source large models, taking into account their differences in technical principles, risk spillover effects, and risk‑control capabilities, and allocate legal responsibilities among developers, providers, users, and other relevant parties in a reasonable manner. Fully and precisely implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity: resolutely impose strict legal penalties on intentional acts of using AI to endanger national security, infringe upon citizens’ rights, or disrupt social order; at the same time, handle innovative activities in AI research, development, and application with due caution, in strict compliance with the principles of legality and proportionality between crime, culpability, and punishment.

II. Properly adjudicate, in accordance with the law, cases involving infringement related to artificial intelligence, and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects.

(3) Accurately determine the principles of liability for torts involving artificial intelligence. Apply, in accordance with the law, relevant statutory provisions, including the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Product Quality Law, and the Road Traffic Safety Law, to ascertain the legal liabilities arising from the infringement of civil rights and interests through the use of artificial intelligence. Where the law does not expressly provide for the application of strict liability or presumed fault liability, the actor’s liability for tort shall be determined in accordance with the principle of fault-based liability set forth in Article 1165, Paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. In assessing whether the actor was at fault and the degree of such fault, due consideration shall be given to the specific context of the AI application, its level of autonomy, the transparency of its technology and data, the potential risks and the scope of their impact; the measures and technical possibilities adopted by AI developers, providers, and other relevant parties to prevent and mitigate AI‑related torts; as well as the foreseeability and controllability of the damages that may result from the infringing acts carried out by users of AI technologies.

(4) In accordance with the law, regulate acts that use generative artificial intelligence—such as “AI face-swapping and voice synthesis” or “AI resurrection of the deceased”—to infringe upon personality rights. The use of generative AI to process the names, portraits, or other personal identifiers of specific natural persons or deceased individuals shall not violate laws or regulations, nor contravene public order and good morals. Except as otherwise provided by law, where a natural person has not consented to the use of AI to process their name, portrait, or other personal identifiers for the purpose of generating a virtual digital image that can identify them and subsequently using or disclosing such an image, if that natural person asserts that the actor has infringed upon their rights of name, portrait, or other personality rights, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, uphold such claims. Except as otherwise provided by law, where a natural person’s voice is used as training data without their consent to generate a synthetic voice that replicates their timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style, and which can be used to identify that natural person, if the natural person alleges that the actor has infringed upon their right of voice, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, uphold such claims. Where a person manipulates a generated or synthesized virtual digital image or voice that can identify a specific natural person to engage in improper conduct or make false statements, thereby damaging the social reputation of that natural person or others, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, determine that such conduct constitutes an infringement of the right to reputation. Where AI technology is used without authorization to create or employ a virtual digital image of a deceased person, resulting in infringement upon the deceased’s name, portrait, reputation, or other related rights, and the deceased’s close relatives, pursuant to Article 994 of the Civil Code, seek civil liability from the actor, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, uphold such claims.

(5) In accordance with laws and regulations, conduct regulatory oversight over the use of artificial intelligence to engage in activities such as “online box‑opening” and “human flesh searches” that infringe upon the privacy rights of natural persons. Where, for the purpose of intruding into private life, artificial intelligence is employed to track and analyze publicly available information—such as telephone numbers, online accounts, and social media profiles—of a specific natural person in order to obtain confidential information, or where such obtained confidential information is disclosed or made public, or where the acquired information is used to disturb the peace and tranquility of private life, such conduct shall be deemed an infringement of the right to privacy. Furthermore, any act of photographing, peeping, or eavesdropping on a specific natural person’s private space or private activities using artificial intelligence shall likewise be deemed an infringement of the right to privacy, unless otherwise provided by law or expressly consented to by that natural person.

(6) In accordance with the law, civil liability for infringements of personal information rights arising during the training of artificial intelligence shall be determined. Where personal information that an individual has voluntarily disclosed or that has already been lawfully made public is processed within a reasonable scope for the purpose of training AI models, and the individual has not explicitly objected, such processing generally will not be deemed to constitute an infringement of personal information rights. However, where the processing has a significant impact on an individual’s rights and interests, consent must be obtained in compliance with applicable legal requirements. In determining what constitutes a “reasonable scope,” due consideration shall be given to factors including the purpose of processing the personal information and the necessity and appropriateness of the model’s functions; the type and sensitivity of the personal information involved, as well as its potential impact on individual rights and interests; and the context in which the information was disclosed by the individual, together with the reasonably foreseeable scope of its use.

(7) Prudently determine the liability of generative artificial intelligence service providers for infringement. Where content automatically generated by generative AI infringes upon others’ rights of reputation, privacy, or other personal rights, and, upon notice from the rights holder, the service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as halting the generation of infringing content, it shall bear tort liability for the resulting damages in accordance with the law. Such notice shall include prima facie evidence of the infringement and the rights holder’s true identity information. If an internet user maliciously induces generative AI to produce infringing content—by, for example, entering infringing prompt words—and thereby causes harm to others, that internet user shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law. Furthermore, if, upon notice from the rights holder, the generative AI service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as ceasing the generation of infringing content or blocking the relevant generation prompts, and the rights holder, pursuant to Article 1195 of the Civil Code, seeks civil liability from both the internet user and the generative AI service provider, the people’s courts shall uphold such claims in accordance with the law.

(8) Apply the injunction system for infringement of personality rights in accordance with the law. Where a natural person, legal person, or non‑legal entity has evidence demonstrating that an actor is using artificial intelligence to commit, or is about to commit, unlawful acts that infringe upon its personality rights, and failure to promptly halt such conduct would result in irreparable harm to its legitimate rights and interests, it may apply to the people’s court for measures ordering the actor to cease the relevant conduct or requiring the relevant online service provider or generative AI service provider to suspend the provision of the pertinent services. The people’s court may, in accordance with the law, issue an injunction against infringement of personality rights. When issuing such an injunction, the people’s court shall, taking into account the type of personality right infringed, the manner in which the unlawful act is carried out, and the scope and extent of the potential harm, adopt appropriate injunctive measures, without exceeding the necessary limits.

(9) Accurately determining liability for artificial intelligence products. People’s courts shall, in accordance with the definition of “product” under the Product Quality Law, accurately identify AI products that take physical form and apply the relevant legal rules. Where an AI product has a defect that causes damage, the producer and the seller shall bear product liability in accordance with the law. In assessing whether an AI product poses an unreasonable risk to personal or property safety, all relevant factors must be comprehensively considered, including the nature and intended use of the AI product, its autonomous learning capabilities, its upgrade and update practices, the degree of user control over the system, and compliance with applicable national and industry standards. Particular attention should be paid to whether the producer and the seller have provided truthful explanations and clear warnings regarding the product’s intended applications, inherent limitations, and foreseeable risks.

(10) Regulate, in accordance with the law, practices such as “big data price discrimination” and “impersonating celebrities to promote products,” which infringe upon consumers’ legitimate rights and interests. Where an operator, by means of algorithms, imposes unreasonable differential treatment on the same goods or services—such as in pricing or other transaction terms—and thereby harms the legitimate rights and interests of others, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, hold the operator liable for tort. In determining whether such differential treatment is unreasonable, consideration shall be given to whether it substantially restricts or harms consumers’ rights to information, to autonomous choice, and to fair trading; whether the transaction terms are tailored to an individual based on their consumption preferences, willingness to pay, ability to pay, browsing history, or other relevant data; and whether such practices violate the principle of good faith and commercial ethics. A comprehensive assessment must be made as to whether the grounds for imposing differential treatment are legitimate, sufficient, and non‑discriminatory. When providing goods or services, if an operator employs artificial intelligence to engage in “impersonating celebrities to promote products” and such conduct constitutes fraud, and a consumer seeks punitive damages pursuant to Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, uphold such claims.

(11) In accordance with the law, liability for damages arising from traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles equipped with driver-assistance systems shall be determined. Where such vehicles are driven on public roads and a traffic accident occurs resulting in damage, the parties shall bear compensation liability pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law. If a traffic accident causing damage is attributable to a product defect, and the injured party seeks compensation from the manufacturer or seller in accordance with Chapter 4 of Title VII of the Civil Code, the people’s courts shall uphold such claims. Where a vehicle equipped with driver-assistance functions causes harm through the combined effect of a vehicle defect and the driver’s negligence, and the injured party, relying on Article 1172 et seq. of the Civil Code, simultaneously seeks compensation from both the driver and the vehicle manufacturer or seller, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, grant such claims. If a vehicle manufacturer or seller engages in false or misleading advertising regarding the automation level, intelligence, performance, or intended use of an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle equipped with driver-assistance systems, thereby infringing upon consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, and the consumer brings a civil action seeking liability under the Civil Code, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and other applicable laws, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, uphold such claims. To ascertain the cause of a road traffic accident, the people’s courts may require data controllers—such as vehicle manufacturers, sellers, or operators—to provide, to the extent necessary, truthful and complete records of automated and driver-assistance events, as well as other data required to establish the facts of the case.

III. Adjudicate, in accordance with the law, intellectual property disputes involving artificial intelligence in a proper and effective manner, thereby ensuring the high-quality development and high-level security of AI.

(12) Regulate, in accordance with the law, acts involving artificial intelligence that infringe intellectual property rights. Where content generated by artificial intelligence infringes another party’s copyright, the people’s courts shall, taking into account such factors as the type of AI service, industry characteristics, sources of training data, the degree of involvement of the parties, the measures taken, and the profits obtained, appropriately determine the liability of AI developers, providers, and users in accordance with the law. If an AI developer raises a non-infringement defense, it shall be ordered to submit evidence, including the sources of training data, records of the training process, the model’s operating mode, and relevant scientific theoretical grounds. Where a rights holder alleges that an AI provider has infringed its copyright by means of algorithmic technology, it must furnish corresponding evidence. If an AI user knows or ought to know that a prior work exists, and uses AI to generate a work substantially similar to that prior work without any reasonable justification, and the rights holder of the prior work seeks to hold the user liable for infringement, the people’s court shall uphold such claim. Any act of infringement—such as counterfeiting, false advertising, or artificially inflating metrics and orders—carried out through the use of AI, which harms the rights of others or constitutes unfair competition, shall give rise to corresponding legal liability.

(13) Lawfully and reasonably determine the legal liabilities of parties involved in artificial intelligence–related open-source software. In adjudicating cases involving open-source software, when assessing the tort liability of open-source software developers, providers, and subsequent developers or providers, courts shall comprehensively consider factors such as the type of open-source license, the specific terms of any restrictions on rights, measures taken to ensure security and compliance, and the extent of information disclosure, and, in accordance with the law, grant appropriate liability exemptions to open-source software developers and providers. Where an open-source software developer or provider makes available, on a free‑of‑charge basis, certain code modules necessary for the research and development of AI‑related software, and publicly discloses their functions and associated security risks, if third parties’ use of such code modules results in infringement, the people’s court may hold the open-source software developer or provider not liable for the infringement.

(14) Regulate, in accordance with the law, the granting and confirmation of patent rights for inventions and creations involving artificial intelligence. Where such inventions and creations employ technical means that conform to natural laws, address specific technical problems, and achieve technical effects consistent with those laws, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, recognize them as objects protected under patent law, except where they contravene laws, public morals, or harm the public interest, or where the natural person concerned has made no substantial contribution. If a natural person uses artificial intelligence to complete an invention or creation, and that person has made a creative contribution to the invention’s essential features, such natural person shall be recognized as the inventor. Furthermore, if the description of the technical solution in the specification of an AI‑related patent is sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the invention, it shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement of adequate disclosure for grant.

(15) In accordance with the law, liability for breach of contract involving artificial intelligence technologies shall be determined prudently. When hearing disputes over contracts related to the development, transfer, licensing, consulting, or provision of services involving artificial intelligence technologies, people’s courts shall, in light of the contractual provisions and after fully considering such factors as the distinctive characteristics of AI research and development and whether the developer has exercised reasonable diligence, determine liability for breach of contract in compliance with the law.

(16) Regulate, in accordance with the law, data‑related activities involving artificial intelligence. Where AI developers lawfully obtain data through collection and generation, derivative creation, acquisition by assignment, or licensing, and thereby enjoy corresponding data rights, such rights shall be protected by the people’s courts. Data and data sets that constitute compilations or otherwise meet the requirements for copyright protection shall be protected under the Copyright Law. Data and data sets that qualify as trade secrets shall be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. For data and data sets that do not constitute trade secrets, if the alleged infringing conduct violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the responsible party shall bear liability in accordance with the law. Operators who, by means of data, algorithms, or other technical measures, enter into monopoly agreements or engage in abuse of a dominant market position shall bear the corresponding legal liabilities. Likewise, those who employ technical methods such as fabricating interfering data, maliciously labeling data, or launching adversarial‑sample attacks to undermine the operational security of AI systems shall bear the corresponding legal liabilities.

IV. Improve the procedural rules for adjudicating disputes involving artificial intelligence, and, in accordance with the law, punish unlawful and criminal acts such as the use of generative AI to undermine judicial order.

(17) Accurately ascertain the facts of AI‑related disputes in accordance with the law. Given the highly technical and specialized nature of such cases, people’s courts shall, in compliance with the law, strengthen procedural guidance and clarification, directing the parties to promptly and comprehensively produce evidence pertaining to the disputed facts. Where a party is unable to collect evidence on its own due to objective reasons, it may apply to the people’s court for investigation and collection; where necessary, the people’s court may, on its own initiative, conduct such investigations and gather evidence. If a party seeks preservation of evidence to secure key technologies, the people’s court shall promptly review the application in accordance with the law. Where a party in control of documentary evidence, electronic data, or other types of evidence refuses to produce it without justifiable grounds, and the opposing party asserts that the content of such evidence is adverse to the controlling party, the people’s court may accept that assertion. With respect to specialized issues involving the principles and operational mechanisms of artificial intelligence technology, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, fully leverage the roles of people’s jurors, expert witnesses, expert assistants, and technical investigators to assist in ascertaining the facts of the case.

(18) Explore and refine the rules for examining evidence in disputes involving artificial intelligence. People’s courts should give full consideration to the complexity of AI technologies, the opacity of system operations, and the unique characteristics of evidence collection, continuously improving evidentiary review procedures to keep pace with technological advances. Particular attention should be paid to verifying the authenticity and integrity of electronic data throughout its generation, collection, storage, and transmission. Distinctive priorities for evidence examination should be established for evidence generated by different information technologies, such as big data and blockchain. With respect to evidence in the form of big‑data analysis reports, scrutiny should focus on the provenance of the raw data, the data‑cleaning protocols, and the scientific soundness of the analytical methods; for blockchain‑based evidence of data preservation, emphasis should be placed on the veracity of the data prior to its entry onto the chain and the reliability of the underlying technical platform. Where a party seeks to introduce AI‑generated content as evidence of infringement, the people’s court shall make a determination by comprehensively assessing factors including the design of prompting instructions and their impact on the output, the degree of similarity between the generated content and the work claimed to be infringed, the consistency of repeated tests, as well as the model’s training process, algorithmic design, and mechanisms for filtering generated content.

(19) Regulate, in accordance with the law, conduct that undermines judicial order, such as the improper use of artificial intelligence to obtain evidence. Where a party, leveraging AI’s capabilities for autonomous learning and decision-making, obtains false evidence—by deleting or altering identifiers of generated or synthesized content, manipulating specific input instructions, selectively presenting results, or introducing adversarial interference—or otherwise engages in deliberate manipulation or misrepresentation to fabricate the essential facts of a civil case and initiate a frivolous lawsuit with the intent to infringe upon national interests, public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, dismiss the claim and, depending on the severity of the circumstances, impose fines or detention; if the conduct constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. If a litigant or any other person uses artificial intelligence to fabricate evidence or otherwise obstructs the people’s court’s adjudication of a case, such conduct shall be handled pursuant to Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law. When submitting litigation documents, case‑search reports, or other materials generated by artificial intelligence, the parties shall, prior to submission to the court, rigorously verify the authenticity and accuracy of the relevant laws, judicial interpretations, case precedents, and other pertinent content; at the time of submission, they must disclose the extent to which AI was employed as an aid and assume legal responsibility for the truthfulness and accuracy of the information provided.

(20) Punish, in accordance with the law, criminal activities perpetrated through the use of artificial intelligence. Any act—such as fraud, insult, defamation, damage to commercial or product reputation, infringement of citizens’ personal information, unlawful acquisition of data from computer information systems, or the production, sale, or dissemination of obscene materials—that constitutes a crime shall be subject to criminal liability in accordance with the law. If, after activating an advanced driver-assistance system, an offender uses illegally installed components to evade the system’s monitoring, thereby causing a road traffic accident that constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall likewise be pursued in accordance with the law.

V. Strengthen judicial guidance on disputes involving artificial intelligence and continuously refine and improve the relevant working mechanisms.

(21) Fully leverage the role of diversified dispute‑resolution mechanisms. People’s courts should actively employ these mechanisms to appropriately resolve AI‑related disputes, and work to establish coordinated, collaborative frameworks with AI industry regulators, sector‑specific mediation organizations, and AI experts and scholars, jointly undertaking dispute‑resolution efforts and strengthening pre‑litigation mediation. Grounded in their judicial adjudicatory functions, courts should promote the rule of law in preventing and resolving AI‑related disputes, proactively clarifying rights and obligations and delineating boundaries of conduct through open court proceedings and case‑based legal interpretation, thereby exercising the exemplary and guiding role of judicial decisions to foster source‑level prevention and timely resolution of such disputes.

(22) Strengthen judicial supervision and guidance. Actively standardize the application of hierarchical jurisdiction, enhance its exemplary and leading role, and ensure the effective implementation of judicial supervision and guidance. For AI-related disputes involving significant interests, novel or complex issues, matters of landmark legal significance, or cases requiring the harmonization of legal application standards, higher-level people’s courts shall assume jurisdiction and conduct trial at a higher level. Fully leverage the People’s Courts’ case database, strengthen case‑based guidance, and promote the uniform application of law and the refinement of governance rules for artificial intelligence.

(23) Strengthen inter‑departmental collaboration and coordination. By issuing judicial recommendations, establishing cooperative mechanisms, and employing other measures, fully leverage the judiciary’s functions to support national and social governance. Enhance coordination and cooperation with departments such as cyberspace administration, public security, procuratorates, and market regulation, and establish and implement a long‑term, comprehensive governance mechanism. Guide relevant enterprises, platforms, industry associations, and other entities to strengthen self‑regulation, thereby fostering a coordinated, end‑to‑end protective framework that integrates industry self‑discipline, administrative oversight, and judicial safeguards.

(24) Strengthen international judicial exchanges and cooperation. Properly adjudicate cross-border disputes involving artificial intelligence and data, and, on the basis of mutual respect and the principles of equality and mutual benefit, advance international judicial exchanges and cooperation in the field of AI. Enhance the alignment and mutual learning of legal norms, and work to establish a more equitable, reasonable, inclusive, and open governance framework for AI, thereby promoting and safeguarding the diversity of the AI ecosystem and human civilization.

Supreme People’s Court

September 7, 2026

( Source: Supreme People’s Court)

Follow us