The Beijing Internet Court (BIC) recently concluded a case concerning a social media influencer's infringement upon a corporate entity's right to reputation, holding that influencers owe a heightened duty of care in their public statements and clarifying the legal boundaries between freedom of expression and corporate reputation rights.

Case summary

The plaintiff, a technology company operating a well-known e-commerce live-streaming brand under an education group, sued the defendant, Zhang, a former employee of a group subsidiary who later became a social media influencer operating multiple platform accounts. Between July and August 2024, the group's Hong Kong-listed company issued announcements regarding streamer departures, related-party transactions, and financial reports. Zhang subsequently published multiple articles and videos making statements such as "government subsidies are actually promotional fees" and "profiting from payments for streamer agency acquisitions."

The plaintiff alleged that Zhang fabricated and disseminated false information and used such content to drive product sales, severely damaging its reputation and commercial image. It sought an injunction, a public apology, and compensation for loss.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not a proper party to the claim, that his statements were reasonable inferences rather than malicious fabrications, that personal opinions do not constitute infringement, and that the plaintiff's reputation had not been diminished. He requested dismissal of all claims. Zhang also filed a counterclaim, arguing that the plaintiff's rebuttal video specifically targeted him and infringed upon his own reputation, seeking removal of the video, an apology, and compensation for emotional distress. The plaintiff countered that its rebuttal statement was a legitimate clarification and did not constitute infringement, requesting dismissal of the counterclaim.

After trial, the BIC determined that:

The plaintiff is entitled to claim personality rights. Under the Civil Code, such claims may only be brought by the holder of the rights. Although Zhang argued that some of his statements were not directly aimed at the plaintiff, the court found that those statements directly targeted the brand and business operated by the plaintiff, which are closely tied to its reputation. Moreover, after the plaintiff published its rebuttal video, some of Zhang's statements were explicitly directed at the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to assert an infringement claim against Zhang.

Zhang's conduct infringed upon the plaintiff's right to reputation. An enterprise's reputation is the foundation of public trust essential to its survival and development. Neither reputation rights nor freedom of expression are absolute; both are subject to legal limitations. As an e-commerce live-streaming enterprise with a significant public presence, the plaintiff is expected to accept public scrutiny, provided such scrutiny is fact-based and within reasonable bounds. The defendant, as a social media influencer with tens of thousands of followers, owes a heightened duty of care in his public statements compared to ordinary social media users.

Zhang's infringing statements centered on "government subsidies" and "equity transaction proceeds", matters that the plaintiff and its affiliates had repeatedly clarified publicly. Zhang's assertions were inconsistent with general public understanding, and even after the plaintiff published its rebuttal video, he continued to disseminate false information. During the proceedings, he further exploited the litigation for traffic generation, aggravating the harm. Ultimately, his conduct caused the plaintiff's social standing and business reputation to decline, constituting infringement of reputation for which he bears liability.

The plaintiff did not infringe upon Zhang's reputation. Its rebuttal statement was primarily intended to clarify facts and uphold the truth, serving a legitimate and reasonable purpose without subjective fault. Although the statement mentioned Zhang's social media accounts, it did not intentionally fabricate or distort facts, use insulting or defamatory language, or disclose private information. Therefore, the plaintiff's conduct did not constitute infringement of reputation.

Details of the judgment

The court ordered Zhang to issue a public apology to the plaintiff and compensate it for property losses. Following the first-instance judgment, Zhang appealed. The Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original ruling.

Comments by the judge

Social media influencers, compared to ordinary social media users, exert greater sway over public perception. Before making statements, they must reasonably verify and review their sources of information. Particularly when the statements are likely to provoke controversy, they must consider the potential social impact of dissemination via the internet and avoid damaging others' reputation through false content.

In this case, the defendant, as a multi-platform content creator with substantial reach, knowingly published statements lacking factual basis and deliberately fabricated and disseminated false information —demonstrating clear subjective fault. His conduct exceeded the reasonable bounds of legitimate expression and public oversight, directly causing the plaintiff's social standing and business reputation to decline. He must bear corresponding tort liability under the law.