The Supreme People’s Court issued the “Opinions on Handling Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law” on September 7, 2026. Comprising 24 articles, these opinions aim to improve the rules regarding liability for AI-related infringements, intellectual property rights, and procedural matters. The opinions clearly state that generating identifiable virtual characters or using synthesized voices without consent constitutes an infringement of personal rights; controlling virtual characters to spread false statements constitutes an infringement of reputation rights; and unauthorized creation of virtual images of deceased individuals that cause harm to close relatives may lead the court to grant civil liability claims in accordance with the law. Regarding online “unboxing” activities, it is clearly stated that using AI to track and analyze private information or disrupt personal peace constitutes an infringement of privacy rights. In the commercial sector, operators who use algorithms to implement unreasonable differential treatment (big data price discrimination) shall bear tort liability; if AI impersonation by celebrities leads to fraud, consumers’ claims for punitive damages are supported by the court. Additionally, the opinions clarify the rules for liability when autonomous vehicles cause damage, supporting victims’ requests for both drivers, manufacturers, and sellers to bear responsibility.
The Supreme People’s Court issued the “Opinions on Handling Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law”, clarifying the rules for adjudicating cases such as “AI face swapping and voice generation”. The opinions consist of 24 articles, covering issues such as liability for AI-related infringements, intellectual property disputes, improvement of procedural rules, and establishment of effective working mechanisms. Regarding “AI face swapping and voice generation”, it is stipulated that generating recognizable virtual characters or using synthesized voices without consent constitutes infringement of personal rights; controlling virtual characters to spread false statements constitutes infringement of the right to reputation; and creating virtual characters of deceased persons without permission, causing harm to their close relatives, will be supported by the court in terms of civil liability. Regarding actions such as “online data hacking”, it is clarified that using AI to track and analyze private information or disrupt personal peace constitutes infringement of privacy rights. Regarding “big data price discrimination”, it is stipulated that operators who use algorithms to implement unreasonable differential treatment shall bear tort liability; if “AI impersonation of celebrities for sales” constitutes fraud, consumers’ claims for punitive damages will be supported by the court. The opinions also clarify the rules for liability in cases where autonomous driving vehicles cause damage, supporting victims’ requests for both drivers, manufacturers, and sellers to bear responsibility, as well as for false…