Five cases handled by the Beijing Internet Court (BIC) were selected as outstanding cases in the Supreme People's Court's first national competition for outstanding court cases.

They include a dispute over privacy rights and personal information protection involving the compulsory collection of user profile information, by an app, a personality right dispute involving AI-generated  voices, an online tort liability dispute involving virtual images, an online tort liability dispute concerning an online service provider's duty to review illegal information that severely infringed a minor's rights and interests, and an online tort liability dispute involving an injunction for personality rights protection.

1. China's first case recognizing the compulsory collection of user profile information by an app

Dispute over privacy rights and personal information protection

Collegial panel: Jiang Ying, Sun Mingxi, Yan Jun

Case Summary

The plaintiff, surnamed Luo, alleged that the defendant's website and app compulsorily collected their phone number and user profile information without notifying the plaintiff of its personal information collection policy, and used this information beyond the necessary scope on its affiliated apps, infringing the plaintiff's personal information rights and interests. The plaintiff also claimed the website sent marketing messages without consent, disturbing Luo's private life and infringing Luo's privacy rights.

To make clear how the defendant dealt with their personal information, Luo requested access to and copies of the personal information. Believing that the screenshots provided by the defendant were neither timely nor clear, Luo filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Internet Court, requesting the court to order the defendant to provide a clear copy of the personal information, cease the infringement, delete their personal information, issue a public apology and compensate for losses totaling 2,900 yuan ($417.52).

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's personal information was collected by its offline partner stores rather than the defendant itself, so it had neither illegally collected nor processed Luo's personal information, nor any intentionally disturbed Luo's private life. The defendant further argued that its website and app used automated decision-making to recommend content based on users' needs, and that collecting user profile information was necessary to provide such services. Therefore, the processing did not require the plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, Luo's voluntary submission of information was, in essence, consent to the collection. The defendant denied that their collecting of information constituted an infringement.

After trial the court found that the defendant operated one website and two apps featuring English study. On Jan 15, 2021, without Luo's consent, the defendant obtained Luo's two mobile phone numbers through an offline partner store, created an account on the English-learning website and sent multiple messages to Luo's phone.

On Jan 20, Luo logged into the website and one of the two apps through the phone number. After logging in, Luo was required to complete a series of questions on occupation, learning objectives, education stage and English proficiency before proceeding. Luo was then required to provide additional personal information, including Chinese and English names, to complete registration. Throughout the process, there was no option to skip or refuse to provide the information, nor was there any notice seeking authorization or consent for the collection of personal information.

On Jan 24, Luo opened the two apps and found that the website's account has been automatically synchronized on both apps.

On Aug 1, 2022, the BIC made following judgement:

1. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff a clear copy of the personal information; 2. The defendant shall cease processing the personal information associated with the plaintiff's two mobile phone numbers, including user profile information, account and password information, and order information; 3. The defendant shall delete the above personal information (already completed); 4. The defendant shall issue a written apology to the plaintiff, with the related expenses borne by the defendant; 5. The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff 2,900 yuan ($417.81), including 1,500 yuan in attorney's fees and 1,400 yuan in evidence collection costs; 6. The plaintiff's other claims shall be dismissed.

The defendant appealed. The Beijing's Fourth Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original order on Nov 28, 2022.

Key points of the judgement

Whether the processing of personal information is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract should be determined with reference to relevant regulations and normative documents, together with the type and content of the contract. Where the processing of certain personal information is indispensable to providing the basic services under the contract or the additional services voluntarily selected by the user, such processing may be regarded as necessary for the conclusion or performance of the contract. Otherwise, it shall not be so regarded.

Where user profile information is not necessary for providing internet services, but a website or app requires users to provide such information during registration or login without offering an alternative way to access the service, users' consent cannot be regarded as voluntary. In such circumstances, where users claim that their personal information rights and interests have been infringed, the People's Court shall support their claims.

2. A case on the protection of voice rights in AI-processed voices

Collegial panel: Zhao Ruigang, Sun Mingxi, Yan Jun, Li Wenchao, Zhao Xiaohui

Case summary

The plaintiff, surnamed Yin, is a voice actor. In May, 2023, Yin found that videos produced using Yin's dubbed voice were being widely disseminated across multiple well-known apps. Through voice screening and source tracing, it was found that the voice used in those works originated from a text-to-speech product available on a platform operated by Defendant One, a Beijing-based tech firm.

The BIC found that in 2019, Yin has been commissioned for audio recording by Defendant Two, a Beijing-based cultural media company, which was also the copyright holder of these recordings.

On May 10, 2019, Defendant Two entered into a data authorization and use agreement with Defendant Three, a software company, under which Defendant Two provided Defendant Three with audio recording data, including the audio recordings at issue. Defendant Two also provided Defendant Three with a data authorization document that did not bear the plaintiff's signature. Using only one of Yin's audio recordings as source material, Defendant Three employed artificial intelligence and other technologies to generate the text-to-speech product at issue and offered it for sale through a cloud service platform operated by Defendant Four. Defendant One entered into an online service sales contract with Defendant Five, under which Defendant Five placed procurement orders with Defendant Three, including the text-to-speech product at issue. Defendant One directly invoked and generated the text-to-speech product through an application programming interface (API), without any further technical processing, for use on its own platform. The platform showed that the voice at issue had been played 3,256,728,530 times.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' conduct had seriously infringed upon the plaintiff's voice rights and requested the court to order the defendants One and Three to immediately cease the infringement and issue apologies, and all defendants to compensate 500,000 yuan ($72,030.72) for the plaintiff's economic loss and 100,000 yuan for damages for emotional distress. During the first-instance proceedings, the defendants One and Three removed the text-to-speech product at issue from their platforms.

During the trial, the court conducted an on-site inspection by generating speech using the text-to-speech product at issue. The AI-generated voice was found to be highly consistent with Yin's voice in terms of timbre, intonation and pronunciation style.

On April 23, 2024, BIC made a civil judgment.  

First, defendants One and Three shall issue a written apology to the plaintiff within seven days after the judgement takes effect;

Second, defendants Two and Three shall compensate 250,000 yuan ($36021.55) to the plaintiff for their economic loss;

Third, the plaintiff's other claims shall be dismissed.

Neither party appealed and the judgment has now taken effect.

Key points of the judgment

Where a voice processed by AI technology can be identified by the general public or a specific group of people as belonging to a particular natural person based on the voice timbre, intonation and pronunciation, it falls within the scope of protection of that person's voice rights. Using AI-generated voices without consent is an infringement of voice right.

3. A case on the infringement of personality rights through virtual characters

Collegial panel: Sun Mingxi, Liu Xing, Yi Ran

Case summary

The defendant was the developer and operator of a mobile app. The app allows users create AI companions by setting their names, profile pictures and relationships, such as romantic partners, siblings or parents.

The plaintiff, surnamed He, is a well-known public figure. A large number of users created AI companions based on He by upholding He's photos as profile pictures and assigning various personal relationships. Using clustering algorithms, the defendant categorized the AI character according to He's real identity and recommended it to other users through a collaborative recommendation algorithm.

To make AI characters more lifelike, the defendant also provided an algorithm training mechanism that allows users to upload various scripts, photos and emojis as interactive materials. Corresponding corpora for different characters were thus established, including the one of He's virtual figure that was later put into conversations to make a much more vivid simulation.

Alleging the defendant had infringed on their rights to name, image and personality, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the BIC seeking an apology and compensation from the defendant.

The defendant argued that the alleged infringement was committed by users rather than itself, and that it merely provided internet technology services. It also argued that it had deleted the AI companion produced on He's name and image upon receiving He's notice, and therefore should not bear any liability.

On Aug 20, 2021, the BIC ordered the defendant to issue a public apology, compensate 183,000 yuan ($26367.65) for the plaintiff's economic loss, including the plaintiff's reasonable expenses of 3,000 yuan for right protection, and recompense 20,000 yuan for the plaintiff's emotional suffering.

The defendant appealed but later withdrew it. The judgment has taken effect.

Key points of the judgment

Creating or using a virtual character of a natural person without the right holder's consent constitutes an infringement of that person's personality rights. Where the right holder claims that such conduct infringes upon his or her personality rights, the court shall support the claim.

Where an internet service provider embeds its own objectives and values into algorithm design and rule-setting, and substantially participates through technology in the creation and dissemination of infringing content, the court shall not support its defense that it merely provides technical services. Such an internet service provider shall be recognized as a direct infringer.

4. A case on an online service provider's duty to review illegal information severely infringing upon the rights and interests of a minor

Collegial panel: Yan Jun, Jing Wenjie, Wang Hongxia

Case summary

The plaintiff, surnamed Li, claimed that on June 9, 2020, a video insulting her was uploaded to an app operated by the defendant. The video contained fabricated sexually explicit rumors, obscene content and the plaintiff's photograph.On June 10, the defendant removed this video after receiving other victims' complaints. As of that day, the video had been viewed 45,000 times. As the plaintiff was a minor and a school student., the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the BIC claimed that the infringement had caused serious emotional harm and filed a lawsuit seeking 200,000 yuan ($28,817.53) in compensation for emotional distress and 5,000 yuan in reasonable expenses.

The defendant argued that the video has been uploaded by a user. It has fulfilled its legal obligations as an online service provider, and thus should not bear legal liability.

The court found that the plaintiff had a dispute with their classmate Huang over a trivial matter. Huang commissioned another student Liu to make a video using the defendant's social media app. The video contained the plaintiff's pictures, name and WeChat account as well as fabricated sexually explicit rumors and advertisements for prostitution. The video spread rapidly after being released, and received over 30,000 views within one day. After discovering that Huang had shared the video on WeChat Moments, the plaintiff reported the matter to the police. The video was removed after receiving complaints from other users. As Huang and Liu were both minors, and with the consent of the plaintiff and their guardian, the police did not pursue administrative or criminal proceedings.

On June 13, 2024, the BIC made a civil judgment.

First, within 10 days of the judgment taking effect, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff 8,000 yuan ($1152.7) for their emotional suffering and pay 2,000 yuan as a counsel fee;

Second, the plaintiff's other claims shall be dismissed.

Neither party appealed. The judgment has taken effect.

Key points of the judgment

Online service providers shall exercise a higher duty of care in reviewing illegal information involving minors' privacy, sexually explicit rumors and other content that seriously infringes upon minors' rights and interests. Where such infringing information attracts a sharp increase in views within a short period and the service provider fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, they shall bear joint and several liability with the network user in accordance with Article 1197 of the Civil Code.

5. A case on issuing a personality rights injunction against continued infringement during the litigation

Judge: Wang Hongxia

Case summary

From May 2022 to April 2023, the defendant, Zhang, opened more than 40 live streams through their two online accounts with a total of about 400,000 followers and posted videos insulting the plaintiff, surnamed Li. Those videos contained repeated insults and personal attacks, prompting online users to ridicule and defame the plaintiff. Zhang also created fan groups to incite others to insult the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the BIC claiming that Zhang has infringed on their reputation rights, seeking an order requiring Zhang to cease the infringement, issue an apology, and compensate for economic losses and emotional distress.

On June 5, 2023, the court held a public hearing and informed the defendant should cease such infringing conduct before judgment was rendered. After the hearing, the plaintiff applied for an injunction for personality rights protection to order the defendant to immediately stop the alleged infringement and prohibit Zhang from continuing to publish content damaging Li's reputation through the two online accounts.

The court found that after being informed by the court to stop the alleged infringement, Zhang continued to livestream every night through one of the accounts, made further infringing remarks against Li, and publicly disclosed part of Li's identity card number.

On July 12, 2023, the BIC made a civil order:

First, the defendant should immediately stop publishing content infringing upon Li's reputation rights through the online account involved from the date of receiving the ruling;

Second, the plaintiff's other applications shall be dismissed.

The defendant has stopped relevant conduct after the ruling took effect.

On Aug 9, 2023, the BIC made a first-instance civil judgement, finding that the defendant had infringed on the plaintiff's reputation rights, and ordering Zhang to cease the infringement, delete the infringing videos, issue an apology, compensate Li 30,000 yuan ($4,322.45) for economic losses and 50,000 yuan for emotional distress.

The defendant submitted an appeal, but it was rejected at the second instance trial on Sept 27, 2023. The original judgment was upheld.

Key points of the judgment

If the defendant continues that alleged infringment of another person's rights after being informed by the court to stop the conduct, and failure to stop the conduct in a timely manner is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder's personal dignity, the court shall, upon the application of the right holder, issue a personality rights injunction ordering the defendant to immediately cease the infringing conduct.

The BIC will continue to uphold its adjudication philosophy of "establishing rules through adjudication, improving governance through rules and facilitating development through governance". It will further strengthen case research and the cultivation of exemplary cases, producing more model cases with demonstrative value and providing strong judicial support for comprehensive cyberspace governance and the high-quality development of the digital economy.