Editor's note: On Sep 9, 2018 the Beijing Internet Court (BIC) was officially established, concentrating jurisdiction over specific types of internet-related first-instance cases that should be handled by grassroots people's courts in the jurisdiction of Beijing. Over the past five years since its establishment, the court has integrated technology and judicial processes to provide legal services and has applied internet thinking in handling internet-related cases. In a recent interview with People's Daily, Jiang Ying, president of the BIC, spoke about "promoting the rule of law in cyberspace governance with a new model of internet justice".

You can read the interview below.

Q: Through the deep integration of technology and justice, the BIC has been striving to build intelligent litigation service systems and carry out legal services online. What have you achieved over the last six years in this area?

A: The establishment of the BIC was a major reform deployment aligns with the development trend of the information age, the implementation of the strategy of building China into a cyber power, and the promotion of the rule of law in cyberspace governance. Since its establishment five years ago, we have been committed to summarizing and promoting new adjudication methods, exploring the development of new online litigation rules, establishing and perfecting professional trial mechanisms, and refining adjudication rules for internet-related cases. I doing so, we have worked to constantly enhance China’s international voice on judicial rules relating to the internet. Throughout the process of building the digital court, we have always adhered to the people-centered principle, making sure that our starting point and goal for every judicial application innovation and every technological update is for the people to enjoy more convenient and efficient internet-related judicial services.

The first manifestation of our deep integration of technology and justice is the building of a whole-process integrated electronic litigation platform by tapping the internet, big data, artificial intelligence and blockchain technology. Unlike a traditional court, parties in the court can complete case-filing, fee payment, document submission, evidence cross-examination, court hearing, appeal and enforcement without ever visiting the court.  Since the establishment of the BIC, we can save 800 yuan ($109) in expenses and and 16 hours of travel time for parties in one case. That also means we have reduced carbon emissions. So it is indeed an economic and environmental-friendly litigation method.

The second manifestation is based on blockchain technology, we have built China’s first court-led “Tianping Blockchain”, an electronic evidence platform that can record whole-process judicial scenarios that is fully credible. The blockchain is also applied in specific case-handling. To date, we have stored evidence involved to more than 7,000 cases on blockchain following judicial verification. It relieved parties from evidence deposit and resolved verification challenges for judges.

The third manifestation is the intelligent litigation service center. While traditional courts typically set up offline litigation service centers, but in an internet court, where parties do not come to the court in person. We have built an online intelligent litigation service center that integrates functions such as electronic litigation platform, mobile micro courts, AI visual judge services and intelligent litigation risks evaluation, fully meeting the needs of parties. The application of AI also provides great convenience for litigants. Take pleadings, for example. Many litigants are not equipped with the legal knowledge required to write a proper plea. But internet-related trials often involve relatively simple cases, such as online shopping disputes, where the amount in dispute is relatively small. The cost of litigation will be particularly high if a lawyer is employed, so we provided an online intelligent system for pleading generation. Parties only need to complete simply fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice questions, and the system will automatically generate a pleading, which will save significantly on litigation costs.

Q: Among the various achievements the BIC has made in the past few years, what explorations have made in terms of litigation rules?

A: Since its establishment, we have handled nearly 200,000 cases, with over 180,000 cases concluded. During the process, we have also actively sought to identify issues and improve our online litigation rules. For example, in early 2020, based on the analysis of over 13,000 online court hearings totaling nearly 8,000 hours, we issued new guidelines for online litigation court proceedings. These guidelines standardized requirements for attire, environment, discipline and etiquette during online hearings, and specific rules regarding tardiness, mid-session departures and witness appearances in the online litigation mode.

Subsequently, we also introduced guidelines for online litigation court etiquette, achieving a systematic standardization of online litigation practices. 

Q: Over the years, we have observed that the cases handled by internet courts involve a wide variety of types and cover a broad range of issues. Could you please elaborate on the characteristics of internet-related cases, with reference to specific cases? 

A: The scope of cases handled by the BIC is clearly defined by the judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People's Court. We exercise  jurisdiction over 11 specific categories of cases that should be adjudicated by primary courts, within the Beijing municipality. Some cases that internet users may be familiar with include those involving sales contracts, online service contracts, online infringement, and internet-related copyright disputes. The characteristics of these cases can be summarized by three "news".

First, the industry sectors involved in these cases are relatively new. Many of the cases we handle reflect the vibrancy of the online social networking, online gaming, and short video live streaming industries. In these emerging fields, numerous issues arise that require judicial confirmation and responses. For example, in terms of short video industry copyright protection, one of the first cases we handled involved the question of whether a 13-second short video can qualify as a piece of work. Prior to this case, disputes of this nature were rare in our caseload, mainly because most videos, such as movies or television shows, were typically runs for several minutes. When a short video is only 13 seconds long, questions arise as to whether it can constitute a piece of work and whether it can express the author's thoughts and emotions, leading to legal controversy.

Cases like this are quite common in internet courts, and we have also adjudicated on many "landmark" cases. For instance, cases involving live streaming e-commerce when live streaming was just beginning. Questions such as the liabilities of live streaming hosts reflect new issues arising in emerging industry sectors. 

Second, the business models involved in these cases are relatively new. The internet-related cases we handle often involve novel business models, such as advanced on-demand viewing, live streaming e-commerce PK and targeted advertising, among others. Through the adjudication of these cases, we actively fill legal gaps and providing judicial solutions. For example, in 2020, when major video platforms introduced the "advanced on-demand viewing" model, we accepted a related case. The plaintiff in this case was an internet user who had purchased a membership service from a long video platform. The membership service promised VIP user early access to the finale. However, the platform later introduced an "advanced on-demand viewing" service, which restricted his original right to view the finales of the series.

The plaintiff argued this change was unreasonable because introducing a new business model should not harm the interests of existing users. Therefore the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Our judicial ruling clarified that online platforms cannot use standard terms to exclude or limit consumers' existing rights. It also regulated the introduction of new business models by platforms. 

Third, the objects of rights involved in our cases are relatively new. The highest proportion of cases we handle are copyright-related, and in this field, many new objects of protection have emerged. For example, GIFs (Graphics Interchange Format) from sports events, recorded screens from game live streams, short videos from live streaming e-commerce, and commonly used emojis.

For instance, in a recent case we adjudicated on involving the reposting of live streaming e-commerce videos, the question was whether videos of live streaming e-commerce could be protected as pieces of work. Through our adjudication, we held that the videos involve were not simply recordings of the e-commerce broadcasts but involved script design, scene selection, camera work, editing and demonstrated the creator's arrangement and choices. Accordingly, we determined that they do constitute pieces of work and should be accorded protection.

Of course, there are many other new types of objects of rights, such as personal information and virtual property. Taking virtual property as an example. It is a digitized, non-physical form of property that differs from the traditional physical form of property. Common examples include game accounts, virtual currency, social media accounts and so on. Through case hearings, we have clarified which belongs to virtual property and should be protected, thus making beneficial explorations in the protection of virtual property.

Q: In recent years, the BIC has handled many exemplary cases, which have clarified the boundaries of online behavior norms. How do we apply an internet-based mindset to handle internet-related cases? 

A: As we mentioned earlier, internet-related cases feature novelty, complexity and forefront topics. Therefore, we emphasize that judges must adopt an internet-oriented mindset, immerse ourselves in the practical context , and stay close to the industry, and effectively manage four key relationships.

The first relationship is between public interest and private interests. The rapid development of the internet has further highlighted the public interest in cyberspace. Balancing the relationship between individual interests and public interests is something we must carefully consider. For example, in a case we handled involving "covert online traffic boosting", the dispute was straightforward and common. The two parties involved had signed a contract regarding online traffic boosting service, where one party was to provide the service and the other party was to pay the agreed amount. The dispute arose when the service provider had already boosted the traffic, but the other party did not make the full payment. Consequently, the service provider filed a lawsuit, claiming to have fulfilled the contractual obligations while the other party had breached the contract by not paying.

Legally, this situation could be seen as a simple breach of contract, and a judgment to pay the agreed amount could suffice. However, our judges keenly observed the harm that "covert online traffic boosting" as a service activity could pose to cyberspace. As we all know,traffic represents the quality and popularity of an online product or service. Online consumers often base their choices on traffic, and fraudulent traffic can mislead consumers, leading to the purchase of unsatisfactory products or services. Furthermore, this behavior poses harm to the competitors in the same industry, especially those who operate with integrity. This constitutes unfair competition.

So the judges deemed this type of contract invalid as it is harmful to the public interest. In the court's ruling, we firmly rejected the practice of "covert online traffic boosting", promoting the core socialist values of societal integrity and fairness.

The verdict received widespread praise. This case was selected by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) as a typical civil case to promote core socialist values and was included in the SPC's annual work report at the two sessions of 2024.

There was another typical case involving accessible films. In this case, the defendant provided films with sign language and audio descriptions in their app, enabling people with visual or hearing impairments to watch movies. However, the plaintiff argued that, while the defendant claimed to be protecting the rights of individuals with visual or hearing impairments, the films provided were indiscriminately available. There was no mechanism in place to filter the target audience, meaning that all internet users could access the movies through the app, which caused significant harm to the rights holders.

In this case, we determined that the defendant was using the guise of protecting public interests to actually infringe on intellectual property rights, therefore their defense was invalid. This case also exemplifies our efforts in balancing public interests and private rights.

The second relationship is the balance between freedom and order. In the internet era, we find ourselves enjoying unprecedented freedom in speeches, and the channels for accessing information have become exceptionally convenient. However, unrestrained freedom cannot generate spontaneous order. Therefore, cyberspace, like the physical world, needs both freedom and order. Hence, a particular category of cases has gained prominence, those involving online speeches infringing rights to reputation, portrait and privacy.

As we all know, citizens have the freedom of speech, a right protected by the Constitution. But does freedom of speech have no boundaries? Of course not. In our judgments, we emphasize that freedom of speech should be bounded by not infringing on the interests of the State and the public, and the rights of other individuals. This is what we mean by speech with purpose and conduct with restraint. Specific cases reflect this value judgment.

For instance, in a case where a lawyer being sued for comments he made while following the progress of a case. The plaintiff, being a party in the case, claimed that the lawyer had infringed on their reputation and privacy rights. However, our investigation revealed that the lawyer's comments were factually based, merely evaluations and judgments based on the lawyer's professional expertise, without insults or disparagement. Therefore, we ruled that it did not violate the plaintiff's rights, thus upholding the citizen's freedom of speech.

Furthermore, there are cases where individuals engaged in insulting and defamatory behavior, which the court determined as infringement. These cases are a part of the efforts to curb online violence, which is firmly opposed in our judicial rulings.

The third relationship is the balance between protection and development. As the internet is constantly evolving, and many issues are novel, while current laws may lag behind. Therefore, judges need to attach equal importance to protection and development. We must not let excessive protection hinder progress or allow development to harm the interests of individual rights.

Taking our landmark case of "13-second short video copyright" as an example, can a 13-second short video receive copyright protection? Besides the legal considerations, we also need to consider the value of the case. Protecting such content may better promote the development of a short video industry or the other way round? This is a factor we need to consider. In this case, the video involved the author's original labor and played a positive role in promoting the short video industry.

Why is that important? When the short video industry was just emerging, short video platforms were flooded with vulgar and low-quality content, a scenario hindering the healthy development of the industry. By protecting an original and positively impactful work, we could encourage a wide range of users to create more high-quality content, which can enrich the spiritual enjoyment of internet users, attract more users to short videos, and ultimately lead to better industry development. 

The fourth relationship is the balance between adjudication and governance. Many cases may not only involve isolated disputes but also pertain to the handling of a category of cases. When adjudicating such cases, we need to use judgments to set benchmarks, clarify boundaries and promote development. This may impose higher requirements on judges, but it also reflects our elevated value pursuit.

For example, in a case involving "a minor paying online for soft pornographic comics", the plaintiff was a 12-year-old girl who secretly downloaded and logged into an app to view soft pornographic comics. Given her limited capacity for judgement, she found it simply intriguing. It took her father two years to discover her activities on this platform. Her father was outraged, argued that the app provided such content without discerning whether users were adults or minors, thereby lacking any social responsibility. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit.

In adjudicating this case, we determined that the defendant, as a platform providing online cultural products, offered soft pornographic comics to minors. The contract was in violation of social norms and should be considered an invalid contract. Children are the future of society and we must protect their physical and mental well-being. In response to the issues arising from this case, we provided judicial recommendations to the platform, suggesting improvements in age verification with minors in mind and content screening to effectively safeguard the mental and physical health of minors.

This case demonstrates the social responsibility shown by judges in offering judicial recommendations to prevent the occurrence of future cases. This case was also selected by the SPC as a typical civil case for promoting core socialist values. 

We have also issued numerous judicial recommendations covering a range of issues, both major and trivial things. For instance, aside from the recommendation to protect minors we just discussed, we have also issued recommendations aimed at protecting consumers. In one case, we discovered that a platform was sending commercial advertisements to users. The platform stated that users could unsubscribe from the advertisements if they did not wish to receive them. In response, the plaintiff in this case unsubscribed but found that they were charged for unsubscribing, which they deemed unreasonable. Since sending commercial ads is an action by the platform, why should consumers bear the cost of unsubscribing?

In that case, we found something particularly noteworthy. The platform used the term "blacklist" for the list of unsubscribed users, which we thought indicated a certain aversion towards this group of users. Therefore, we sent a judicial recommendation to the platform, urging them to respect and protect consumers' legitimate rights and interests. The platform responded positively and made improvements, including amending the term and complying with our ruling on the unsubscribing fees.

We have also strengthened coordination with government agencies and social organizations to address potential legal and social issues comprehensively. This approach helps resolve the root causes of disputes effectively, ensuring that we not only address issues after they arise, but also prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

Q: Cyberspace governance is another topic that has garnered considerable attention from netizens. What progress has the BIC made in this regard?

A: In terms of cyberspace governance. First, we have established rules for cyberspace governance through our judicial rulings. Focusing on new issues in cyberspace governance, we have incubated 156 typical cases, and built four major judicial rules databases covering intellectual property, civil, commercial and procedural cases. We have adjudicated China's first-of-its-kind cases, such as the covert online traffic boosting service contract case, the AI-related copyright infringement case, the AI-companion software algorithm infringement case, and the case declaring invalidity of jurisdictional clauses in cross-border e-commerce platforms.

Through adjudication on those cases, we have regulated the wealth accumulation path in cyberspace, sparked innovation and creativity, guided technology for the public good, safeguard judicial sovereignty in cyberspace, and effectively propelled the vigorous development of the digital economy along the track of the rule of law.

Second, we have enhanced cyberspace governance efficiency and effectiveness through proactive judicial actions. For example, we have adjudicated on a case involving overseas purchases where the plaintiff bought a product on an overseas shopping platform but claimed that the product received did not meet their needs, leading to litigation. During the defense, the defendant argued that disputes arising from transactions on the overseas platform were subject to the jurisdiction of other countries as stipulated in the user agreement, and thereby outside China’s jurisdiction.

The judge deemed that denying a legal recourse in China to Chinese consumers would cause significant harm to the consumer because it was very unlikely that the consumer would litigate in a foreign court for such small-value goods. Therefore, the BIC's judge ruled that the exclusion of Chinese court jurisdiction for Chinese consumers was inappropriate, declaring the jurisdiction clause invalid and effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese consumers.

We also pay special attention to optimizing the online legal and business environment. For instance, we adjudicated a case concerning the reputation of an entrepreneur. Before the enterprise went public, there were online attacks aimed at defaming the enterprise, which posed a significant obstacle to its listing. In this case, we have clarified through judicial rulings that such behavior constitutes infringement, thereby effectively purifying the online business environment.

We have focused on addressing the disorder in cyberspace, tackling issues such as online violence and the use of ‘internet water armies’, and formulated a study report on misconduct in online speech by adolescents , leading to joint governance efforts by six ministries to address negative phenomena in fan culture. We have strengthened the protection of minors' rights in cyberspace, establishing the country’s first internet juvenile tribunal, creating the first online platform for family education guidance, and issuing the first online Family Education Guidance Order.

Addressing issues such as minors making online purchases and tipping, minors running online stores, and the dissemination of harmful online content, we have actively utilized judicial measures and sent five judicial recommendations to internet platforms, all of which received positive responses. We have also developed guidelines such as the Guidelines for the Management of Minor User Accounts by Internet Service Providers and the Guidelines for Handling Complaints Involving the Infringement of Minors' Rights , urging online platforms to better fulfill their social responsibility in protecting minors.

Q: Looking ahead, how will the BIC further promote the rule of law in cyberspace governance?

A: This year marks the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the BIC, which is a milestone and a new starting point for us. We will continue to adhere to the principle of "establishing rules through judgments and promoting governance through rules," extending our efforts into various sectors of the digital economy. We will delve deeper into developing advanced internet judicial rules that can further drive the prosperity of the digital economy, promote governance in cyberspace, and strive to construct a unique and globally leading internet judicial model with Chinese characteristics and safeguard China's modernization with high-quality internet judicial services. We will safeguard Chinese modernization and fulfill the responsibilities and mission entrusted to the internet courts by the Party and the State to an even higher standard.