Full Text: China Supreme People's Court Opinion on Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence (Fa Fa [2026] No. 10)

This is an unofficial English translation, provided for reference only. The authoritative text is the Chinese original issued by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China on September 7, 2026 as Opinion on Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in Accordance with Law (Fa Fa [2026] No. 10). Where this translation differs from the Chinese text, the Chinese text governs. This translation has not been reviewed or endorsed by the Supreme People's Court.

Under Article 5(1) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2020 revision), that law does not apply to laws and regulations, or to resolutions, decisions, and orders of State organs and other documents of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature. The Chinese original is accordingly reproduced in full and unaltered on our Chinese site. For ease of reference, each article's heading is set out as a subheading; paragraph divisions follow the original.

Source: Supreme People's Court website, "SPC Issues the Opinion on Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in Accordance with Law." The answers to press questions published the same day provide further context. Our analysis of the Opinion appears in Key Points.

---

Fa Fa [2026] No. 10

To fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the plenary sessions of its 20th Central Committee; to serve and safeguard the accelerated development of new quality productive forces through strict and impartial administration of justice; and to guide people's courts at all levels in adjudicating disputes involving artificial intelligence in accordance with law — pursuant to the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Data Security Law, the Copyright Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Civil Procedure Law, and other relevant laws, and in light of the practical work of the people's courts, this Opinion is issued.

I. General Requirements

(1) Guiding ideology

Take Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as guidance; thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law; earnestly implement General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thought on building China's strength in cyberspace; deeply recognize that artificial intelligence is an important driving force of the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation; adhere to according equal weight to development and security and to combining the promotion of innovation with governance according to law; adjudicate AI-related disputes impartially and in accordance with law; promote improvement in the safety, reliability, controllability, and fairness of AI applications; and provide strong judicial service and safeguards for comprehensively advancing the building of a strong country and national rejuvenation through Chinese modernization.

(2) Basic principles

Adhere to a people-centered approach. Give play to the guiding role of judicial adjudication; actively guide artificial intelligence toward advancing the people's well-being; and earnestly strengthen judicial protection of livelihood rights in the digital age. Actively and prudently explore and improve judicial adjudication rules and mechanisms in the AI field, including those concerning algorithmic ethics and algorithmic rules; make full and effective use of existing legal provisions; properly address the rule conflicts, social risks, and ethical challenges brought by the development of AI technology; promote improvement of the corporate social responsibility system for AI enterprises; give attention to preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination; protect individuals' rights to information and choice in automated decision-making in accordance with law; prevent and regulate conduct that abuses AI technology to harm the lawful rights and interests of the people; and promote AI that serves the people and works for good.

Support innovation and development. Respect the laws of technological innovation and the practical development of the AI industry; support technological and industrial innovation through judicial adjudication consistent with the spirit of law and policy and with the laws of technological development. Explore judicial protection paths for new types of rights and interests; continually strengthen protection of AI innovation achievements, innovating entities, innovative conduct, and the innovation environment. Balance the protection of rights and interests with technological and industrial development in an inclusive and prudent manner, fostering an environment that encourages exploration and tolerates failure. Regulate monopolistic or unfair competitive conduct carried out through AI technology in accordance with law; safeguard equality of rights, of opportunity, and of rules among relevant actors in developing and using AI technology; and strengthen equal protection of the rights and interests of small and medium-sized enterprises and other business entities. Through impartial and efficient adjudication of AI-related disputes, actively guide and promote the deep integration of the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence with the real economy; support the cultivation and growth of the AI industry; and maximize the release of AI's enormous potential to empower high-quality economic and social development.

Hold firm the security baseline. Determine legal liability accurately and in accordance with law, based on the specific harm and the nature and magnitude of the risk that AI may pose to the lawful rights and interests of civil subjects in different application scenarios. Distinguish the differences in technical principles, risk externalities, and control capability among different types of large models — general-purpose versus special-purpose, open-source versus closed-source — and reasonably allocate the legal liability of developers, providers, users, and other actors. Fully and accurately implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity: resolutely punish, in accordance with law, crimes intentionally committed through AI that endanger national security, infringe citizens' rights and interests, or disrupt social order; and handle innovative conduct in AI research, development, and application prudently and in accordance with law, adhering to the principles of legality and of proportionality between crime, responsibility, and punishment.

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

(3) Accurately applying the principles of liability in AI-related torts

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 laws in determining liability arising from the use of AI to infringe civil rights and interests. Where the law does not expressly provide for no-fault liability or presumed fault, whether an actor bears tort liability shall be determined under the fault liability principle in Article 1165, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. In assessing whether and to what degree an actor is at fault, consider comprehensively: the specific application scenario of the AI, its degree of autonomy, technical and informational transparency, and the potential risk and scope of impact; the measures taken by AI developers, providers, and other relevant actors to prevent and reduce AI-related infringement and what was technically possible; and the ability of AI users to foresee and control the harm that infringing conduct carried out through AI technology might cause.

(4) Regulating in accordance with law the use of generative AI to infringe personality rights, including "AI face-swapping and voice cloning" and "AI resurrection of the deceased"

The use of generative AI to process the name, likeness, or the like of a specific natural person or a deceased person must not violate laws or regulations, nor offend public order and good morals. Except as otherwise provided by law, where AI is used without a natural person's consent to process that person's name, likeness, or the like so as to generate and use or publish a virtual digital representation identifiable as that person, and the person claims infringement of personality rights including the rights to name and likeness, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law. Except as otherwise provided by law, where a natural person's voice is used without consent as training material to imitate that person's timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style so as to generate a synthetic voice identifiable as that person, and the person claims infringement of voice rights, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law. Where a generated or synthesized virtual digital representation or voice identifiable as a specific natural person is manipulated to engage in improper conduct or to make false statements that lower the social evaluation of that person or another, the people's court shall find infringement of reputation rights in accordance with law. Where AI technology is used without authorization to create or use a deceased person's virtual digital representation such that the deceased's name, likeness, or reputation is infringed, and close relatives seek civil liability under Article 994 of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law.

(5) Regulating in accordance with law the use of AI to infringe natural persons' privacy through "doxxing" and "human flesh search"

Where, for the purpose of prying into privacy, AI is used to track and analyze public information such as a specific natural person's telephone number, online accounts, and social media so as to obtain private information; or where private information so obtained is disclosed or published; or where information so obtained is used to disturb the tranquility of private life — this shall be found to constitute infringement of the right to privacy. Where AI is used to photograph, peer into, or eavesdrop upon a specific natural person's private spaces or private activities, this shall be found to constitute infringement of the right to privacy, unless otherwise provided by law or expressly consented to by that person.

(6) Determining civil liability for infringement of personal information rights in AI training

Processing, within a reasonable scope and for AI model training, personal information that an individual has made public or that has otherwise been lawfully made public, where the individual has not expressly refused, shall generally not be found to infringe personal information rights. Where there is a material effect on individual rights, consent shall be obtained as provided by law. In determining reasonable scope, consider comprehensively: the necessity and appropriateness of the processing purpose relative to the model's function; the type and sensitivity of the personal information involved and its potential effect on individual rights; and the context in which the individual made the information public and the scope of use that could reasonably be expected.

(7) Prudently determining the tort liability of generative AI service providers

Where content automatically generated by generative AI infringes another's personality rights such as reputation or privacy, and the generative AI service provider, having been notified by the rights holder, fails to take necessary measures such as ceasing generation of the infringing content in a timely manner, it shall bear tort liability for the resulting harm in accordance with law. The notice shall include preliminary evidence of infringement and the rights holder's true identity. Where a network user maliciously induces generative AI to produce infringing content by entering infringing prompts or similar means and causes harm to another, that user shall bear tort liability in accordance with law; and where the generative AI service provider, having been notified by the rights holder, fails to take necessary measures such as ceasing generation of the infringing content or blocking the relevant generation instructions, and the rights holder seeks civil liability from that network user and the provider under Article 1195 of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law.

(8) Applying the personality rights injunction system in accordance with law

Where a natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization has evidence that an actor is using AI to engage in, or is about to engage in, unlawful conduct infringing its personality rights, and that a failure to stop it promptly would cause irreparable harm to its lawful rights and interests, and applies to the people's court for measures ordering the actor to cease the conduct or ordering the relevant network service provider or generative AI service provider to cease providing the relevant service, the people's court may issue a personality rights injunction in accordance with law. In issuing such an injunction, the people's court shall adopt corresponding measures in light of the type of personality right infringed, the manner of the unlawful conduct, and the scope and degree of potential harm, and shall not exceed what is necessary.

(9) Accurately determining AI product liability

The people's court shall, in accordance with the definition of "product" in the Product Quality Law, accurately identify AI products with a physical carrier and apply the corresponding legal rules. Where a defect in an AI product causes harm, the producer and seller shall bear product liability in accordance with law. In determining whether an AI product presents an unreasonable danger to personal or property safety, consider comprehensively the product's nature and use, autonomous learning capability, upgrade and update history, the degree of user control over the system, and conformity with applicable national and industry standards; and focus on whether the producer and seller gave truthful explanation and clear warning regarding the product's application scenarios, inherent limitations, and foreseeable risks.

(10) Regulating in accordance with law conduct harming consumers' lawful rights and interests, including "big data price discrimination" and "celebrity impersonation in livestream sales"

Where, with respect to the same goods or services, a business uses algorithms to apply unreasonable differential treatment in transaction price or other transaction terms, harming another's lawful rights and interests, the people's court shall find corresponding tort liability in accordance with law. In determining whether differential treatment is unreasonable, consider comprehensively whether the justification for it is legitimate, adequate, and non-discriminatory, in light of: whether the differential treatment substantively restricts or harms consumers' rights to information, free choice, and fair dealing; whether individualized transaction terms are formed based on the consumer's consumption preferences, willingness to pay, ability to pay, browsing history, or similar information; and whether it violates the principle of good faith and commercial ethics. Where a business, in supplying goods or services, uses AI to engage in "celebrity impersonation in livestream sales" and the conduct constitutes fraud, and the consumer seeks punitive damages under Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law.

(11) Determining liability in traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles with assisted driving functions

Where an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle with assisted driving functions operating on a road causes harm in a traffic accident, 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 harm, and a party seeks liability from the producer or seller under Book Seven, Chapter Four of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support the claim. Where a defect in a vehicle with assisted driving functions combines with the driver's fault to cause the same harm, and a party seeks liability from both the driver and the vehicle producer or seller under Article 1172 and other provisions of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law. Where a vehicle producer or seller makes false or misleading claims regarding the level of automation, degree of intelligence, performance, or use of an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle with assisted driving functions, harming consumers' lawful rights and interests, and the consumer seeks civil liability from the producer or seller under the Civil Code, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, or other laws, the people's court shall support the claim in accordance with law. To ascertain the cause of a road traffic accident, the people's court may require the vehicle producer, seller, operator, or other data controller to provide, within the necessary scope, truthful and complete autonomous driving and assisted driving event records and other data needed to establish the facts of the case.

III. Properly Adjudicating AI-Related Intellectual Property Disputes in Accordance With Law, and Safeguarding High-Quality Development and High-Level Security in Artificial Intelligence

(12) Regulating AI-related infringement of intellectual property in accordance with law

Where AI-generated content infringes another's copyright, the people's court shall reasonably determine, in accordance with law, the liability of AI developers, providers, and users, considering comprehensively the type of AI service, industry characteristics, the source of the training data, each party's degree of participation, the measures taken, and the profits obtained. Where an AI developer asserts non-infringement, it shall be ordered to provide the source of the training data, records of the training process, the model's operating mode, and the scientific basis in support. Where a rights holder asserts that an AI provider has infringed its copyright through algorithmic technology, it shall provide the relevant evidence. Where an AI user knows or should know of the existence of a prior work, uses AI to generate a work substantially similar to that prior work, and has no reasonable defense, and the rights holder in the prior work seeks tort liability, the people's court shall support the claim. Where AI is used to engage in infringement and counterfeiting, false advertising, traffic and order fabrication, or similar conduct that infringes another's rights or constitutes unfair competition, corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with law.

(13) Reasonably determining in accordance with law the legal liability of parties to AI-related open-source software

In adjudicating open-source software cases and determining the tort liability of open-source software developers and providers and of subsequent developers and providers, consider comprehensively the type of open-source license, the specific content of the rights limitations, the security and compliance measures, and the degree of information disclosure, and grant open-source software developers and providers appropriate exemption from liability in accordance with law. Where an open-source software developer or provider supplies, free and open-source, part of the code modules needed for AI software research and development, and publicly explains their function and security risks, and another's use of those code modules results in infringement, the people's court may find that the open-source software developer or provider does not bear tort liability.

(14) Regulating in accordance with law the grant and confirmation of patents for AI-related inventions

Where an AI-related invention employs technical means following natural laws, solves a technical problem, and achieves a technical effect consistent with natural laws, the people's court shall find it to be subject matter protected by the Patent Law — except where it violates law or social morality, harms the public interest, or where no natural person made a substantive contribution. Where a natural person uses AI to complete an invention and that natural person made a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention, that natural person shall be found to be the inventor. Where the description in an AI-related patent specification sets out the technical solution to a degree enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention, the requirement of sufficient disclosure for grant shall be found satisfied.

(15) Prudently determining in accordance with law liability for breach of AI-related technology contracts

In adjudicating disputes over AI-related technology development, transfer, licensing, consulting, and service contracts, the people's court shall determine liability for breach in accordance with law and the contract terms, giving full consideration to the characteristics of AI research and development and to whether the developing party made reasonable efforts.

(16) Regulating AI-related data use in accordance with law

Where an AI developer lawfully obtains data through collection and generation, derivative creation, assignment, licensing, or other means and holds corresponding data rights and interests, the people's court shall protect them. Data and data sets constituting compilation works or meeting the requirements of other works shall be protected under the Copyright Law. Data and data sets constituting trade secrets shall be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Where data or data sets do not constitute trade secrets but the challenged conduct violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, liability shall be borne in accordance with law. Where a business uses data, algorithms, or other technical means to reach a monopoly agreement or to abuse a dominant market position, corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with law. Where technical means such as fabricated interference data, malicious data labeling, or adversarial example attacks are used to harm the operational security of AI, corresponding liability shall be borne in accordance with law.

IV. Improving Procedural Rules for AI-Related Disputes, and Punishing in Accordance With Law the Use of Generative AI to Obstruct Judicial Order and Commit Other Unlawful Acts and Crimes

(17) Accurately ascertaining the facts in AI-related disputes in accordance with law

Given the highly technical and specialized character of AI-related disputes, the people's court shall strengthen litigation guidance and clarification in accordance with law, guiding the parties to complete their evidentiary submissions promptly and comprehensively around the disputed facts. Where a party cannot collect evidence on its own for objective reasons, it may apply to the people's court to investigate and collect it; where necessary, the people's court may investigate and collect evidence on its own authority. Where a party applies for evidence preservation to fix key technology, the people's court shall promptly review the application in accordance with law. Where a party controlling documentary evidence, electronic data, or other evidence refuses without justification to produce it, and the opposing party asserts that its contents are unfavorable to the controlling party, the people's court may find that assertion established. On specialized questions concerning AI technical principles, operating mechanisms, and the like, the people's court shall give full play to the role of people's assessors, appraisers, expert assistants, and technical investigators in accordance with law to assist in ascertaining the facts.

(18) Exploring and improving rules for reviewing evidence in AI-related disputes

The people's court shall give full consideration to the complexity of AI technology, the opacity of system operation, and the particular character of evidence collection, and continually improve evidentiary review rules suited to the development of new technology. Focus review on the authenticity and completeness of the generation, collection, storage, and transmission of electronic data. Set differentiated review priorities for evidence produced by different information technologies, including big data and blockchain. For big-data analysis report evidence, focus review on the source of the original data, the cleaning rules, and the scientific soundness of the analytical method. For blockchain-preserved evidence, focus review on the authenticity of the data before it was written to the chain and the reliability of the technical platform. Where a party offers AI-generated content as evidence of infringement, the people's court shall make its determination considering comprehensively the design of the prompt and its effect on the output, the degree of similarity between the generated content and the work in which rights are asserted, the consistency of repeated testing, and factors such as model training, algorithm design, and content filtering mechanisms.

(19) Regulating in accordance with law the improper use of AI to obtain evidence and other conduct obstructing judicial order

Where a party, exploiting AI's capacity for autonomous learning and autonomous decision-making, obtains false evidence through human intervention or misleading means — including deleting or altering the label identifying generated or synthesized content, specific instruction inputs, selective presentation of results, or adversarial interference — and fabricates the basic facts of a civil case to bring fraudulent litigation in an attempt to harm the national interest, the public interest, or another's lawful rights and interests, the people's court shall dismiss the claim in accordance with law and impose a fine or detention according to the severity of the circumstances; where a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law. Where a litigation participant or other person uses AI to fabricate evidence and obstructs the people's court in adjudicating a case, Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply. Where a litigation participant submits pleadings, case research reports, or other materials generated using AI, before submission to the court it shall carefully verify the authenticity and accuracy of the laws, judicial interpretations, cases, and other content; at the time of submission it shall explain the use of AI assistance; and it shall bear responsibility according to law for the authenticity and accuracy of that content.

(20) Punishing crimes committed through AI in accordance with law

Where AI is used to commit fraud, insult, defamation, damage to business reputation or product reputation, infringement of citizens' personal information, unlawful acquisition of computer information system data, or the production, sale, or dissemination of obscene materials, and a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law. Where an actor, after activating an assisted driving function, uses privately installed accessories to evade assisted driving system monitoring and thereby causes a road traffic accident, and a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law.

V. Strengthening Adjudication Guidance in AI-Related Disputes and Continually Improving Working Mechanisms

(21) Giving full play to diversified dispute resolution mechanisms

The people's court shall actively use diversified dispute resolution mechanisms to properly resolve AI-related disputes; promote the establishment of coordination mechanisms with AI industry regulators, industry and professional mediation organizations, and AI academics and experts to resolve disputes jointly; and give practical effect to pre-litigation mediation. Building on its adjudicative function, the court shall promote improvement in the rule-of-law level of AI dispute prevention and resolution; clarify rights and obligations and delineate the boundaries of conduct through open hearings, explanation of the law through cases, and similar means; give play to the demonstrative and guiding role of judicial adjudication; and promote prevention of AI-related disputes at the source and their timely resolution.

(22) Strengthening adjudication supervision and guidance

Actively standardize the application of elevated jurisdiction, strengthen the demonstrative role, and give practical effect to adjudication supervision and guidance. AI-related disputes involving major interests, difficult and complex new types, rule-setting significance, or the need to unify standards for the application of law shall be heard by a higher people's court through elevated jurisdiction. Make full use of the people's courts case database, strengthen case guidance, and promote unified application of law and improvement of AI governance rules.

(23) Strengthening inter-departmental coordination

Through judicial recommendations, cooperation mechanisms, and other means, give full play to the judicial function in serving national and social governance. Strengthen coordination with cyberspace administration, public security, procuratorial, market regulation, and other departments, and establish and implement a long-term comprehensive governance mechanism. Guide enterprises, platforms, industry associations, and others toward well-regulated self-governance, and promote the formation of a full-chain protective synergy among AI industry self-discipline, administrative supervision, and judicial safeguards.

(24) Strengthening international judicial exchange and cooperation

Properly adjudicate cross-border AI and data disputes; on the basis of mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit, advance foreign-related adjudication exchange and cooperation in the AI field; strengthen the alignment of rules and mutual learning; promote the construction of a fairer, more reasonable, more inclusive, and more open AI governance system; and promote and protect the diversity of the AI ecosystem and of human civilization.

Supreme People's Court

September 7, 2026

Our analysis of the Opinion appears in Key Points. This is an unofficial translation provided for reference and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.