On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference on the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Adjudicating Artificial Intelligence-Related Dispute Cases in Accordance with the Law. Vice-President of the Supreme People's Court Tao Kaiyuan, Director of the Research Office Zhou Jiahai, Presiding Judge of the No. 3 Civil Division Li Jian, and Deputy Director of the Research Office Si Yanli attended the press conference and answered questions from journalists. The press conference was chaired by Ji Zhongbiao, spokesperson of the Supreme People's Court. At the press conference, Vice-President of the Supreme People's Court Tao Kaiyuan released the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Adjudicating Artificial Intelligence-Related Dispute Cases in Accordance with the Law.

The photo shows the scene of the press conference. Photo by Wang Shengxiang.

On September 7, the Supreme People's Court publicly released the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Adjudicating Artificial Intelligence-Related Dispute Cases in Accordance with the Law (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions"). This is an important measure by which the Supreme People's Court thoroughly studies and implements Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, comprehensively implements Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, earnestly implements General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thought on building China into a cyber power, comprehensively implements the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the successive plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, and safeguards the accelerated development of new-quality productive forces with high-quality judicial services. The drafting background, drafting principles and main content of the Opinions are briefly introduced as follows.

I. The Drafting Background of the Opinions

At present, global technological innovation in artificial intelligence has entered an unprecedentedly active period. Intelligent technologies featuring the intelligent connection of all things and human-machine collaboration are superimposed to release enormous energy, embodying both huge opportunities and governance challenges. In recent years, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has attached great importance to the healthy development of artificial intelligence. In April 2025, at the 20th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must grasp the development trends and laws of artificial intelligence, step up the formulation and improvement of relevant laws and regulations, policies and systems, application norms and ethical guidelines, build systems for technical monitoring, risk early-warning and emergency response, and ensure that artificial intelligence is safe, reliable and controllable." The Outline of the 15th Five-Year Plan once again emphasized the need to improve the laws and regulations, policies and systems, application norms and ethical guidelines in the field of artificial intelligence, and to explore the establishment of rules for determining the ownership of rights in AI-generated products and the rights and responsibilities of developers, operators and users. The Plan for the Protection and Utilization of Intellectual Property during the 15th Five-Year Plan Period recently issued by the State Council proposes to improve the rules on intellectual property protection related to algorithms, AI-generated products, and the development of the platform economy, and to implement a two-way empowerment project between intellectual property and artificial intelligence.

How the judiciary can give full play to its functional role, promote the healthy development of artificial intelligence, serve national and social governance, and safeguard high-quality economic and social development is a question of the times that the people's courts face and must answer. In order to thoroughly implement the series of important decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee on the development and governance of artificial intelligence, the Supreme People's Court, on the basis of earnestly summarizing its adjudication practice experience and after extensively soliciting opinions and conducting in-depth research and demonstration, formulated these Opinions. The Opinions adhere to a problem-oriented and value-oriented approach, focus on the prominent problems in AI-related adjudication that are widely concerned by all sectors of society, grasp judicial laws amid the ever-changing technological transformation, and support the innovative development of artificial intelligence technology while drawing clear legal "red lines," so that artificial intelligence, this fine steed, can run both fast and steadily.

The Opinions are the first judicial ruling document on artificial intelligence issued by the country's highest adjudication body, and represent the "Chinese judicial wisdom" contributed to promoting the positive and beneficial development of artificial intelligence globally. During the drafting of the Opinions, strong support and assistance were received from relevant central authorities, representatives of the artificial intelligence industry, experts and scholars, and other sectors of society. It can be said that the Opinions are both a summary of adjudication practice experience and a crystallization of the wisdom of all sectors of society.

II. The Main Considerations of the Opinions

First, resolutely implementing the decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee, and serving and safeguarding the in-depth implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy. By formulating a judicial ruling document on artificial intelligence, the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions and directives on artificial intelligence and the requirements of the Party Central Committee on strengthening the development and governance of artificial intelligence are put into practice, implemented and refined. The Opinions strengthen judicial protection for AI innovation achievements, innovation entities, innovation activities and the innovation environment, delineate behavioral boundaries that are clear in rights and responsibilities and scientifically reasonable, draw clear legal "red lines" and bottom lines, promote technological exploration and industrial innovation through fair and efficient justice, and maximize the enormous potential of artificial intelligence to empower high-quality economic and social development.

Second, strictly following the legislative spirit, and ensuring the uniform and correct application of the law. Artificial intelligence is a new technology, AI-related legal issues are new problems, and China has not yet enacted a dedicated law on artificial intelligence. To this end, in accordance with the principle of adapting to the development of the times and making full and good use of existing legal provisions, and based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Copyright Law, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Civil Procedure Law and other laws, the Opinions provide conceptual and rule guidance for handling AI-related dispute cases in accordance with the law. For example, they clarify the principle of liability attribution in AI-related tort cases, whether the use of already-disclosed personal information in model training constitutes infringement, the definition and defect determination of AI products, the legal liability involving open-source software, and the patentability of AI-related inventions and creations.

Third, coordinating development and security, and adhering to a people-centered approach and intelligence for good. The Opinions respect the laws of scientific and technological innovation and the development practice of the artificial intelligence industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation with judicial ruling rules that conform to the spirit of laws and policies and to the laws of technological development. In accordance with the law, they accurately determine legal liability based on the possible damage that artificial intelligence may cause in different application scenarios and the nature and magnitude of the risks. They properly address the rule conflicts, social risks and ethical challenges brought about by the development of artificial intelligence technology, attach importance to preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination, and prevent and regulate acts that abuse artificial intelligence technology to infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of the people. They give play to the leading role of judicial adjudication, actively guide artificial intelligence to enhance the well-being of the people, and strengthen judicial protection of civil rights and interests in the digital age.

Fourth, adhering to a problem-oriented and scenario-application approach, and enhancing the pertinence and effectiveness of the document. Based on its adjudication functions, the Opinions precisely focus on issues of widespread concern to all sectors of society, such as "AI face-swapping and voice-mimicking," "AI hallucination" infringement, "cyber doxxing," "big-data-enabled price discrimination against loyal customers," autonomous driving, and model training, and set out targeted substantive adjudication rules and litigation procedure rules for AI-related dispute cases. For issues on which consensus is currently difficult to reach, the Opinions have left blanks, to be clarified in an appropriate manner when experience is further accumulated and conditions are ripe.

III. The Main Content of the Opinions

The Opinions are divided into 5 parts, with a total of 24 articles. The main content is as follows:

First, specifically clarifying the guiding ideology and basic principles for the adjudication of AI-related dispute cases. General Secretary Xi Jinping's important discourse on artificial intelligence provides the fundamental guidance for the people's courts to adjudicate AI-related dispute cases and to clarify judicial ruling rules. Part One of the Opinions (Articles 1 and 2) clarifies the guiding ideology that should be adhered to in adjudicating AI-related dispute cases, and clearly puts forward three basic principles, namely adhering to a people-centered approach, supporting innovative development, and building a solid security defense line, so as to ensure that judicial adjudication of AI-related dispute cases always maintains the correct political direction and effectively implements the conceptual requirements of attaching equal importance to development and security and combining the promotion of innovation with governance in accordance with the law.

Second, regulating in accordance with the law tortious acts that make use of artificial intelligence. Part Two of the Opinions (Articles 3 to 11) first clarifies the principle of liability attribution for AI-related tort liability, and then, in view of different scenarios such as using artificial intelligence to infringe personality rights, personal information rights and interests, and consumer rights and interests, clarifies the determination and assumption of tort liability. In addition, it makes clear the tort liability of generative artificial intelligence service providers, artificial intelligence product liability, and the compensation liability for traffic accidents involving autonomous driving vehicles and vehicles with assisted-driving functions.

Third, adjudicating AI-related intellectual property dispute cases in accordance with the law. Part Three of the Opinions (Articles 12 to 16) makes special provisions on the adjudication of AI-related intellectual property dispute cases, covering five aspects: the determination of tort liability, the legal liability of open-source software, patent authorization and confirmation, the performance of technology contracts, and data use norms. It actively responds to the new questions and new challenges that the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology poses to the judicial protection of intellectual property, seeks a balance between encouraging artificial intelligence technological innovation and safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of right holders, and provides clear judicial ruling rules for the high-quality development and high-level security of artificial intelligence.

Fourth, exploring and improving trial procedure rules and punishing illegal and criminal acts in accordance with the law. Part Four of the Opinions (Articles 17 to 20) mainly includes two aspects. On the one hand, in view of the strong technical and specialized characteristics of AI-related dispute cases, it explores and improves the rules for fact-finding and evidence review in AI-related dispute cases, and at the same time makes clear the regulation in accordance with the law of acts that disturb the judicial order, such as improperly obtaining evidence using artificial intelligence and providing false materials. On the other hand, it makes principled provisions on punishing in accordance with the law various criminal acts committed using artificial intelligence.

Fifth, establishing and improving the adjudication and working mechanisms for AI-related dispute cases. The Opinions cannot possibly cover all types of artificial intelligence cases; many issues require further exploration and accumulation in judicial practice, and artificial intelligence governance is a systematic project that requires coordinated efforts and multiple measures by all parties. In this regard, Part Five of the Opinions (Articles 21 to 24) makes provisions on the prevention and resolution of AI-related conflicts and disputes, strengthening research and demonstration, case guidance and adjudication supervision and guidance, and strengthening inter-departmental collaboration and international judicial exchange and cooperation.

In his keynote speech at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "The faster artificial intelligence technology develops, the more precisely we must anchor the direction of being positive, beneficial and benefiting humanity, the more accurately we must grasp the scale of regulation and governance, and the more timely we must improve measures to prevent loss of control." Going forward, the Supreme People's Court will always thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, always adhere to a people-centered approach, take the release and implementation of the Opinions as an opportunity, persistently do a good job in the adjudication of AI-related dispute cases, give full play to the normative and leading role of judicial adjudication, promote artificial intelligence technology to be positive, beneficial and benefit humanity, and provide strong judicial services and safeguards for comprehensively advancing the building of a strong country and the great cause of national rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernization.

Fa Fa [2026] No. 10

Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Adjudicating Artificial Intelligence-Related Dispute Cases in Accordance with the Law

In order to comprehensively implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the successive plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, to serve and safeguard the accelerated development of new-quality productive forces through strict and impartial justice, and to guide people's courts at all levels in adjudicating AI-related dispute cases in accordance with the law, in accordance with 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 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, 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 in light of the actual adjudication work of the people's courts, the following opinions are put forward.

I. General Requirements

(1) Guiding Ideology

Adhere to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guide, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, earnestly implement General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thought on building China into a cyber power, profoundly recognize that artificial intelligence is an important driving force of the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, uphold attaching equal importance to development and security and combining the promotion of innovation with governance in accordance with the law, adjudicate AI-related dispute cases fairly and in accordance with the law, promote the improvement of the safety, reliability, controllability and fairness of the application of artificial intelligence technology, and provide strong judicial services and safeguards for comprehensively advancing the building of a strong country and the great cause of national rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernization.

(2) Basic Principles

Adhere to a people-centered approach. Give play to the leading role of judicial adjudication, actively guide artificial intelligence to enhance the well-being of the people, and effectively strengthen judicial protection of people's livelihood rights and interests in the digital age. Actively and prudently explore and improve judicial ruling rules and mechanism building in the field of artificial intelligence, such as those concerning algorithmic ethics and algorithmic rules, make full and good use of existing legal provisions, properly address the rule conflicts, social risks and ethical challenges brought about by the development of artificial intelligence technology, promote the improvement of the corporate social responsibility system for artificial intelligence enterprises, attach importance to preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination, protect in accordance with the law individuals' right to know and right to choose in automated decision-making, prevent and regulate acts that abuse artificial intelligence technology to infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of the people, and promote artificial intelligence to serve the people and be for good.

Support innovative development. Respect the laws of scientific and technological innovation and the development practice of the artificial intelligence industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation with judicial adjudication that conforms to the spirit of laws and policies and to the laws of technological development. Explore new paths of judicial protection for new types of rights and interests, and continuously intensify the protection of AI innovation achievements, innovation entities, innovation activities and the innovation environment. Balance the protection of rights and interests with the development of technology and industry in an inclusive and prudent manner, and create a favorable environment that encourages exploration and tolerates failure. Regulate in accordance with the law the monopoly or unfair competition carried out using artificial intelligence technology, safeguard in accordance with the law the equality of rights, opportunities and rules for relevant entities in developing and using artificial intelligence technology, and strengthen the equal protection of the rights and interests of business entities such as small and medium-sized enterprises. Through fair and efficient adjudication of AI-related dispute cases in accordance with the law, actively guide and promote the deep integration of the internet, big data, artificial intelligence and the real economy, help cultivate and strengthen the artificial intelligence industry, and maximize the enormous potential of artificial intelligence to empower high-quality economic and social development.

Build a solid security bottom line. In accordance with the law, accurately determine legal liability based on the specific damage that artificial intelligence may cause to the lawful rights and interests of civil subjects in different application scenarios and the nature and magnitude of the risks. Distinguish the differences in technical principles, risk spillover and control capabilities among different types of large models, such as general-purpose versus special-purpose and open-source versus closed-source, and make a reasonable division of the legal liability of entities such as developers, providers and users. Comprehensively and accurately implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity: for criminal acts intentionally committed using artificial intelligence that endanger national security, infringe upon citizens' rights and interests, or disrupt social order, resolutely impose severe punishment in accordance with the law; for innovative acts in the research, development and application of artificial intelligence, handle them prudently in accordance with the law, and abide by the principles of legally prescribed crimes and punishments and the commensuration of crime, responsibility and punishment.

II. Properly Adjudicating AI-Related Tort Cases in Accordance with the Law and Effectively Safeguarding the Lawful Rights and Interests of Civil Subjects

(3) Accurately grasp the principle of liability attribution for AI-related tort liability. Accurately apply the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Product Quality Law, the Road Traffic Safety Law and other relevant laws, and determine in accordance with the law the legal liability arising from the use of artificial intelligence to infringe upon civil rights and interests. Where the law does not expressly provide for the application of no-fault liability or presumed-fault liability, the principle of fault liability provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 1165 of the Civil Code shall be applied to determine whether the actor bears tort liability. In judging whether the actor is at fault and the degree of fault, the following factors shall be comprehensively considered: the specific scenario of the artificial intelligence application, the degree of autonomy, the transparency of technology and information, the potential risks and scope of impact; the measures taken by relevant entities such as AI developers and providers to prevent and reduce AI infringement and the technical feasibility thereof; and the ability of the AI user to foresee and control the damage that may be caused by the tortious act committed using artificial intelligence technology.

(4) Regulate in accordance with the law acts that use generative artificial intelligence to infringe upon personality rights and interests, such as "AI face-swapping and voice-mimicking" and "AI resurrection of the deceased." The use of generative artificial intelligence to process the name, likeness and other attributes of a specific natural person or a deceased person must not violate laws and regulations, and must not violate public order and good morals. Except as otherwise provided by law, where, without the consent of a natural person, artificial intelligence is used to process the name, likeness and other attributes of the natural person to generate a virtual digital image identifiable as that natural person, which is then used and disclosed, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed upon his or her name right, likeness right and other personality rights and interests, the people's court shall support such claim in accordance with the law. Except as otherwise provided by law, where, without the consent of a natural person, the voice of the natural person is used as training corpus to imitate the natural person's timbre, intonation and pronunciation style so as to generate a synthetic human voice identifiable as that natural person, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed upon his or her voice rights and interests, the people's court shall support such claim in accordance with the law. Where a virtual digital image or voice that has been generated and synthesized and is identifiable as a specific natural person is manipulated to carry out improper acts or make untrue statements that lower the social evaluation of that natural person or others, the people's court shall determine in accordance with the law that this constitutes an infringement of the right to reputation. Where artificial intelligence technology is used to produce or use, without authorization, a virtual digital image of a deceased person, thereby causing the deceased person's name, likeness, reputation and other attributes to be infringed, and the close relatives of the deceased request the actor to bear civil liability in accordance with Article 994 of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support such request in accordance with the law.

(5) Regulate in accordance with the law acts that use artificial intelligence to carry out "cyber doxxing," "human-flesh searching" and other acts infringing upon the right to privacy of natural persons. Where, for the purpose of prying into privacy, artificial intelligence is used to track and analyze the publicly available information of a specific natural person, such as telephone numbers, online accounts and social media, so as to obtain private information, or to leak or disclose the private information so obtained, or to use the information so obtained to disturb the tranquility of private life, this shall be determined to constitute an infringement of the right to privacy. Where artificial intelligence is used to film, spy on, eavesdrop on, or otherwise act upon a specific natural person's private spaces or private activities, this shall be determined to constitute an infringement of the right to privacy, except where otherwise provided by law or where the natural person has expressly consented.

(6) Determine in accordance with the law the civil liability for infringing upon personal information rights and interests in the process of artificial intelligence training. Where, for the purpose of artificial intelligence model training, personal information that individuals have disclosed on their own or that has otherwise been lawfully disclosed is processed within a reasonable scope, and the individual has not expressly refused, this generally shall not be determined to be an act infringing upon personal information rights and interests. Where there is a significant impact on personal rights and interests, the consent of the individual shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the law. In determining the reasonable scope, the following factors shall be comprehensively considered: the purpose of processing the personal information and the necessity and appropriateness thereof for the model's functions; the type and degree of sensitivity of the personal information involved and its potential impact on personal rights and interests; and the scenario in which the individual disclosed the information and the scope of use that can be reasonably expected.

(7) Prudently determine the tort liability of generative artificial intelligence service providers. Where content automatically generated by generative artificial intelligence infringes upon another person's right to reputation, right to privacy and other personality rights and interests, and the generative artificial intelligence service provider, after being notified by the right holder, fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, such as stopping the generation of the infringing content, it shall bear tort liability for the damage caused in accordance with the law. The notice shall include preliminary evidence constituting the infringement and the true identity information of the right holder. Where a network user maliciously induces generative artificial intelligence to generate infringing content by means such as inputting infringing prompt words, thereby causing damage to others, the network user shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law; where the generative artificial intelligence service provider, after being notified by the right holder, fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, such as stopping the generation of the infringing content and blocking the relevant generation instructions, and the right holder requests the network user and the generative artificial intelligence service provider to bear civil liability in accordance with Article 1195 of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support such request in accordance with the law.

(8) Apply in accordance with the law the system of injunctions against infringement of personality rights. Where a natural person, legal person or unincorporated organization has evidence to prove that an actor is using artificial intelligence to carry out, or is about to carry out, an illegal act infringing upon its personality rights and interests, and that failure to stop it in a timely manner will cause irreparable damage to its lawful rights and interests, and applies to the people's court for measures ordering the actor to stop the relevant act or ordering the relevant network service provider or generative artificial intelligence service provider to stop providing the relevant service, the people's court may issue an injunction against the infringement of personality rights in accordance with the law. In issuing an injunction against the infringement of personality rights, the people's court shall, in light of factors such as the type of personality right infringed, the manner of the illegal act, and the scope and degree of the damage that may be caused, take corresponding injunctive measures, which shall not exceed the necessary limits.

(9) Accurately determine artificial intelligence product liability. The people's court shall, in accordance with the definition of "product" under the Product Quality Law, accurately determine in accordance with the law an artificial intelligence product that takes a physical object as its carrier, and apply the corresponding legal rules. Where an artificial intelligence product is defective and causes damage, the producer and the seller shall bear product liability in accordance with the law. In determining whether an artificial intelligence product presents an unreasonable danger endangering personal or property safety, the following factors shall be comprehensively considered: the nature and use of the artificial intelligence product, its autonomous learning capability, its upgrade and update situation, the degree of the user's control over the system, and whether it conforms to the relevant national standards and industry standards; and emphasis shall be placed on examining whether the producer and the seller have made truthful explanations and clear warnings regarding the applicable scenarios, inherent limitations and foreseeable risks of the artificial intelligence product.

(10) Regulate in accordance with the law acts infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of consumers, such as "big-data-enabled price discrimination against loyal customers" and "celebrity-imitation product promotion." Where, with respect to the same commodity or service, a business operator uses algorithms to impose unreasonable differential treatment in transaction conditions such as transaction prices, thereby infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of others and causing damage, the people's court shall determine in accordance with the law that it bears the corresponding tort liability. In determining whether unreasonable differential treatment is constituted, comprehensive consideration shall be given, on the basis of whether the differential treatment substantially restricts or harms the consumer's right to know, right to independent choice, right to fair transaction and the like; whether transaction conditions targeted at the individual are formed based on information such as the consumer's consumption preferences, willingness to pay, ability to pay and browsing records; and whether it violates the principle of good faith and business ethics; to whether the reasons for imposing the differential treatment are legitimate, sufficient and non-discriminatory. Where a business operator, in providing commodities or services, uses artificial intelligence to carry out "celebrity-imitation product promotion" that constitutes fraud, and the consumer claims punitive damages in accordance with Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the people's court shall support such claim in accordance with the law.

(11) Determine in accordance with the law the compensation liability for traffic accidents involving autonomous driving vehicles and vehicles with assisted-driving functions. Where an autonomous driving vehicle or a vehicle with assisted-driving functions is driven on a road and a traffic accident causes damage, compensation liability shall be borne in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law. Where a product defect in the vehicle causes a traffic accident resulting in damage, and a party requests the producer or seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of Book Seven of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support such request. Where a vehicle with assisted-driving functions causes the same damage as a result of the combination of a defect in the vehicle and the fault of the driver, and a party requests, in accordance with Article 1172 and other provisions of the Civil Code, that the driver and the vehicle producer or seller simultaneously bear compensation liability, the people's court shall support such request in accordance with the law. Where the vehicle producer or seller makes false or misleading publicity regarding the automation level, degree of intelligence, performance, use and the like of an autonomous driving vehicle or a vehicle with assisted-driving functions, thereby harming the lawful rights and interests of consumers, and the consumer requests the vehicle producer or seller to bear civil liability in accordance with the Civil Code, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and other legal provisions, the people's court shall support such request in accordance with the law. In order to ascertain the cause of a road traffic accident, the people's court may require data controllers such as the vehicle producer, seller or operator to provide, within the necessary scope, truthful and complete data needed to ascertain the facts of the case, such as event records of autonomous driving and assisted driving.

III. Properly Adjudicating AI-Related Intellectual Property Dispute Cases in Accordance with the Law and Safeguarding the High-Quality Development and High-Level Security of Artificial Intelligence

(12) Regulate in accordance with the law acts of AI-related infringement of intellectual property. Where AI-generated content infringes upon another person's copyright, the people's court shall comprehensively consider factors such as the type of artificial intelligence service, the characteristics of the industry, the source of the training data, the degree of participation of each party, the necessary measures taken, and the profits obtained, and reasonably determine in accordance with the law the liability of the artificial intelligence developer, provider and user. Where an artificial intelligence developer raises a defense of non-infringement, it shall be ordered to provide, in support thereof, the source of the training data, records of the training process, the model's operating mode, and the scientific and theoretical basis, among others. Where a right holder claims that an artificial intelligence provider has used algorithmic technology to infringe upon its copyright, the right holder shall provide the relevant evidence. Where an artificial intelligence user knows or should know that a prior work exists, and uses artificial intelligence to generate a work substantially similar to the prior work without a reasonable defense, and the right holder of the prior work requests the user to bear tort liability, the people's court shall support such request. Where artificial intelligence is used to carry out acts such as infringing counterfeiting, false publicity, and fabricating traffic or orders, thereby infringing upon the rights of others or constituting unfair competition, the corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with the law.

(13) Reasonably determine in accordance with the law the legal liability of the relevant parties to AI-related open-source software. In adjudicating cases involving open-source software and determining the tort liability of the developers and providers of open-source software as well as subsequent developers and providers, comprehensive consideration shall be given to factors such as the type of open-source license agreement, the specific content of the rights restrictions, the security and compliance measures, and the degree of information disclosure, and appropriate exemption from liability shall be granted in accordance with the law to the developers and providers of open-source software. Where the developer or provider of open-source software provides, in a free and open-source manner, part of the code modules needed for the research and development of AI-related software, and publicly explains the functions and security risks thereof, and another person's use of the code modules leads to infringement, the people's court may determine that the developer or provider of the open-source software does not bear tort liability.

(14) Regulate in accordance with the law the patent authorization and confirmation of AI-related inventions and creations. Where an AI-related invention or creation adopts technical means that follow the laws of nature, solves a technical problem, and achieves a technical effect that conforms to the laws of nature, the people's court shall determine in accordance with the law that it is subject matter protected by the Patent Law, except where it violates laws, offends social morality, harms the public interest, or where a natural person has made no substantive contribution. Where an invention or creation is completed by a natural person using artificial intelligence, and that natural person has made a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention or creation, that natural person shall be determined to be the inventor. Where the description in an AI-related patent expresses the technical solution to a degree that a person of ordinary skill in the art can carry out the invention, it shall be determined to meet the authorization condition of sufficient disclosure.

(15) Prudently determine in accordance with the law the liability for breach of contract in the performance of AI-related technology contracts. In adjudicating cases of disputes over AI-related technology development, transfer, licensing, consulting and service contracts, the people's court shall, in accordance with the contractual stipulations, fully consider circumstances such as the characteristics of artificial intelligence technology research and development and whether the technology developer has made reasonable efforts, and determine the liability for breach of contract in accordance with the law.

(16) Regulate in accordance with the law acts of AI-related data use. Where an artificial intelligence developer lawfully obtains data and enjoys the corresponding data rights and interests through means such as collection and generation, derivative creation, assignment and acquisition, or authorization and licensing, the people's court shall provide protection. Data and data collections that constitute compilation works or meet the constitutive requirements of other works shall be protected in accordance with the Copyright Law. Data and data collections that constitute trade secrets shall be protected in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. For data and data collections that do not constitute trade secrets, where the accused infringing act violates the provisions of Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, liability shall be borne in accordance with the law. Where a business operator uses technical means such as data and algorithms to reach a monopoly agreement or to abuse a dominant market position, the corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with the law. Where technical means such as fabricating interference data, maliciously labeling data, or adversarial-sample attacks are used to harm the operational security of artificial intelligence, the corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with the law.

IV. Improving the Trial Procedure Rules for AI-Related Dispute Cases and Punishing in Accordance with the Law Illegal and Criminal Acts Such as Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Disturb the Judicial Order

(17) Accurately ascertain in accordance with the law the facts of AI-related dispute cases. In view of the strong technical and specialized characteristics of AI-related dispute cases, the people's court shall strengthen litigation guidance and clarification in accordance with the law, and guide the parties to complete the presentation of evidence in a timely and comprehensive manner around the disputed facts. Evidence that a party is unable to collect on its own due to objective reasons may be collected by the people's court upon the party's application; where necessary, the people's court may investigate and collect evidence ex officio. Where a party applies for evidence preservation in order to fix key technology, the people's court shall review it in a timely manner and in accordance with the law. Where a party who controls documentary evidence, electronic data or other evidence refuses without justified reason to submit it, and the opposing party claims that the content of the evidence is unfavorable to the controlling party, the people's court may determine that such claim is established. For specialized issues involving the technical principles and operating mechanisms of artificial intelligence, the people's court shall, in accordance with the law, give full play to the roles of people's assessors, appraisers, expert assistants and technical investigation officers to assist in ascertaining the facts of the case.

(18) Explore and improve the rules for evidence review in AI-related dispute cases. The people's court shall fully consider the complexity of artificial intelligence technology, the opacity of system operation, and the special nature of evidence collection, and continuously improve the rules for evidence review adapted to the development of new technologies. Emphasis shall be placed on examining the authenticity and completeness of the process of generating, collecting, storing and transmitting electronic data. Differentiated evidence-review priorities shall be specified for evidence generated by different information technologies such as big data and blockchain. For evidence in the nature of big-data analysis reports, emphasis shall be placed on examining the source of the raw data, the cleaning rules, and the scientific validity of the analysis methods; for evidence in the nature of blockchain deposition, emphasis shall be placed on examining the authenticity of the data before it was put on the chain and the reliability of the technical platform. Where a party uses AI-generated content as evidence of infringement, the people's court shall make a determination by comprehensively considering factors such as the design of the prompt words and their influence on the generated result, the degree of similarity between the generated content and the work in which rights are claimed, the consistency of repeated tests, as well as the model training, algorithm design, and content-filtering mechanisms for the generated content.

(19) Regulate in accordance with the law acts that disturb the judicial order, such as using artificial intelligence to improperly obtain evidence. Where a party, exploiting the characteristics of artificial intelligence of autonomous learning and autonomous decision-making, obtains false evidence by means of human intervention or misleading, such as deleting or tampering with the labels of generated and synthesized content, inputting specific instructions, selectively presenting results, or adversarial interference, and fabricates the basic facts of a civil case to conduct false litigation, attempting to infringe upon national interests, the public interest or the lawful rights and interests of others, the people's court shall reject its litigation claims in accordance with the law, and impose a fine or detention according to the seriousness of the circumstances; where a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. Where a litigation participant or another person uses artificial intelligence to forge evidence and thereby obstructs the people's court in adjudicating a case, the matter shall be handled in accordance with Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law. Where materials submitted by a litigation participant, such as litigation documents or case-retrieval reports, are generated using artificial intelligence, the participant shall, before submitting them to the court, carefully verify the authenticity and accuracy of the relevant laws, judicial interpretations, cases and other content; shall, when submitting them to the court, explain the situation of using artificial intelligence assistance; and shall bear liability in accordance with the law for the authenticity and accuracy of the relevant content.

(20) Punish in accordance with the law criminal activities committed using artificial intelligence. Where artificial intelligence is used to carry out acts such as fraud, insult, defamation, damaging commercial reputation or goods reputation, infringing upon citizens' personal information, illegally obtaining computer information system data, and producing, selling or disseminating obscene materials, and such acts constitute a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. Where an actor, after activating the assisted-driving function, uses privately installed accessories to evade the monitoring of the assisted-driving system, thereby causing a road traffic accident that constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law.

V. Strengthening Adjudication Guidance for AI-Related Dispute Cases and Continuously Improving the Working Mechanisms

(21) Give full play to the role of the diversified dispute resolution mechanism. The people's court shall actively use the diversified dispute resolution mechanism to properly resolve AI-related disputes, promote the establishment of a linkage and coordination mechanism with the competent authorities of the artificial intelligence industry, sector-specific and professional mediation organizations, and artificial intelligence experts and scholars, jointly carry out dispute resolution work, and effectively implement pre-litigation mediation. Based on its judicial adjudication functions, the people's court shall promote the raising of the level of rule of law in the prevention and resolution of AI-related disputes, actively clarify rights and obligations and delineate behavioral boundaries through means such as open trials and explaining the law through cases, give play to the demonstrative and leading role of judicial adjudication, and promote the prevention of AI-related disputes at the source and their timely resolution.

(22) Strengthen adjudication supervision and guidance. Actively and normatively apply the elevation of jurisdiction, strengthen the demonstrative and leading role, and effectively implement adjudication supervision and guidance. AI-related dispute cases that involve major interests, are difficult, complex and of a new type, are of significance in establishing rules, or require the unification of standards for the application of the law shall be adjudicated by a higher people's court through elevation of jurisdiction. Make full use of the case database of the people's courts, strengthen case guidance work, and promote the unification of the application of the law and the improvement of artificial intelligence governance rules.

(23) Strengthen inter-departmental collaboration and coordination. Through various means such as issuing judicial recommendations and establishing cooperation mechanisms, give full play to judicial functions and serve national and social governance. Strengthen coordination and collaboration with departments such as cyberspace administration, public security, procuratorial organs, and market regulation, and establish and implement a long-term comprehensive governance mechanism. Guide relevant enterprises, platforms, industry associations and the like to regulate self-governance, and promote the formation of a full-chain protection synergy of industry self-discipline, administrative supervision and judicial safeguards for the artificial intelligence industry.

(24) Strengthen international judicial exchange and cooperation. Properly adjudicate cross-border dispute cases involving artificial intelligence and data; on the basis of adhering to the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, advance foreign-related adjudication exchange and cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence, strengthen the alignment and mutual learning of rules, promote the building of a fairer, more reasonable, inclusive and open artificial intelligence governance system, and promote and protect the diversity of the artificial intelligence ecosystem and human civilization.

Supreme People's Court

September 7, 2026

Source: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, 2026-09-07. Original: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6033.html