中国最高人民法院发布的首份人工智能相关纠纷司法指导意见

OnSeptember7,2026,China'sSupremePeople'sCourt

("SPC")issuedtheOpinionsoftheSupremePeople's

CourtontheTrialofCasesInvolvingArtificialIntelligenceDisputesinAccordancewiththeLaw(the"Opinions"),

thefirstjudicialguidelinesaddressingdisputesrelatingtoartificialintelligence("AI").1

TheOpinionscomprisefivesectionsand24articles,

providingjudicialguidelinesonanumberofcutting-edgelegalissuesrelatingtoAl,includingthegeneral

frameworkforAl-relatedtortliabilityandAlproduct

liability,copyrightinfringementinvolvingAl-generatedcontent("AIGC"),protectionofpersonalityrights,rulesgoverningtheuseofpubliclyavailablepersonal

informationforAlmodeltraining,liabilityofgenerativeAI("GenAl")serviceproviders,patentprotectionforAl-assistedinventions,andliabilityarisingfrom

autonomousandassisteddrivingsystems.

¹supremePeople'sCourt,SupremePeople'sCourtReleasesOpinionsontheTrialofCases

InvolvingArtificialIntelligenceDisputesinAccordancewiththeLaw(Sept.7,2026),

/s/1wwUS-nT6veViuSp47YKkw.SeealsoZhouJiahai,SiYanli,Qin

Yuanming

,

JiaYuhui&ZhangYin

,

Understandingand

ApplicationoftheOpinionsofthe

SupremePeople'sCourtontheTrialofCasesInvolvingArtificialIntelligenceDisputesin

AccordancewiththeLaw(Sept.7,2026),

/s/HAOZD6HTWykltHiysz-zzQ

[hereinafterSPCExplanatoryArticle].

-1

I.Al-RELATEDLIABILITY(ARTICLES3AND9)

1.GeneralPrincipleforAl-RelatedLiability(Article3)

Article3oftheOpinionsprovidesthatliabilityforAl-relatedinfringementshouldbedeterminedbasedonthespecificapplicationoftheAlsystemanditscorrespondinglawsandregulations,

suchastheCivilCode,PersonalInformationProtectionLaw,ProductQualityLaw,andRoad

TrafficSafetyLaw.Wheretheexistinglegislationexpresslyprovidesforno-faultliabilityor

presumed-faultliability,thoserulesapply;otherwise,thegeneralprincipleoffault-basedliabilitywillapplytoAl-relatedinfringements.

Article3furtherprovidesthat,whendeterminingwhethertheallegedinfringerisatfaultandthedegreeofsuchfault,courtsshallconsiderthefollowingfactors.TheSPCExplanatoryArticle

explainsthesefactorsasfollows:

·ThescenarioinwhichtheAlsystemisdeployedandused—Forexample,theAlsystemusedtogeneratetextorimagespresentsdifferentrisksfromtheAlsystemthatisusedin

autonomousdrivingormedicaldiagnosis,andtherefore,theapplicabledutyofcareshoulddifferaccordingly.

·ThelevelofAlautonomy—Generallyspeaking,thehigherthelevelofautonomy,thegreaterthedutyofcarethatwouldbeexpectedfromAldevelopersandserviceprovidersrelativetoAl

users.

·Technicalandinformationaltransparency-Inparticular,whetherAldevelopersorAlserviceprovidershaveclearlywarnedusersaboutthetechnicallimitationsandrelevantlegalrisksrelatingtotheAlsystemwouldbeimportant.

·Potentialrisksandthescopeoftheirimpact—ThegreaterthepotentialriskandthewidertheimpactthattheAlsystemwillbringtothepublic,thehigherthecorrespondingdutyofcare

thatAldevelopersandAlserviceprovidersshallundertake.

·Preventivemeasuresandtheirtechnicalfeasibility—WherecurrenttechnologydoesnotmakeitpossibleforGenAlserviceproviderstocompletelypreventinfringingAIGCoutputs,they

generallyshouldnotberequiredtobeararesults-basedreviewobligation.

·Theuser'sabilitytoforeseeandcontroltheharm—AsAlsystemsmayhaveadegreeof

autonomyandopacity,harmmayexceedtheuser'sforeseeablerangeorcontrol,whichfactshouldbetakenintoaccountwhenassessingtheuser'sfault.

ThisliabilityframeworkwillbeparticularlyimportantinfutureAllitigationcases,involvingAldevelopers,Aldeploymentproviders,AlserviceprovidersandAlusers.

3

2.AI-ProductsLiabilityv.AIServicesLiability(Article9)

TheOpinionsdrawanimportantdistinctionbetweenAl-servicesliabilityandAl-productsliability.

Article9oftheOpinionsprovidesthat,forthepurposesofdeterminingproductliability,an"Al

product"shouldgenerallyrefertoaproductembodiedinaphysicalcarrier.TheSPC

ExplanatoryArticlecites"embodied-intelligencerobots"and"autonomousvehicles"asexamplesofsuchAl-enabledphysicalproducts,andclarifiesthatAlservicesthemselvesdonotfallwithinthedefinitionof"Alproducts"forthispurpose.

3.Al-ProductsLiabilityStandard(Article9)

IndeterminingwhetheranAlproductisdefective,includingwhetheritpresentsanunreasonabledanger,courtsshouldconsidermultiplefactors.TheSPCExplanatoryArticlenotesthat,unlike

traditionalproductswhosedefectsareoftenassessedbyreferencetotheirfixedconditionat

manufacture,risksassociatedwithAlproductsmayemergethroughautonomouslearningandinteractionwiththeenvironment,whileopacityintheirdecision-makingmaymakedefectsmoredifficulttoassess.Againstthatbackground,therelevantfactorsthatcourtsshouldconsider

whenevaluatingliabilityinclude:

·ThenatureandintendeduseoftheAlproduct—thecharacteristicsoftheAlproductandthepurposesforwhichitisdesignedtobeused;

·Itscapacityforautonomouslearning-includingwhetherrisksmayemergeastheAlproductlearnsandinteractswithitsenvironment;

·Upgradesandupdates-theAlproduct'srelevantupgradeandupdatestatusinassessingtheallegeddanger;

·ThedegreeofusercontrolovertheAIsystem-theextenttowhichoperationoftheAlsystemremainssubjecttousercontrol;and

·Compliancewithapplicablenationalandindustrystandards—noncompliancewith

applicablesafetystandardsmayestablishadefect;compliance,however,doesnotprecludeadefectfindingwheretheAlproductneverthelesspresentsanunreasonabledanger.

TheOpinionsfurtheremphasizetheimportanceofsufficientdisclosuresandwarnings.ChinesecourtsareexpectedtopayparticularattentiontowhethermanufacturersandsellersofAl

productshaveprovidedtruthfulexplanationsandsufficientlyclearwarningsregardingtheAlproduct'sintendedusecases,itsinherentlimitationsandreasonablyforeseeablerisks.

II.AICOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENTDISPUTES(ARTICLE12)

1.CopyrightInfringementLiabilityamongAlDevelopers,AIServiceProvidersandAIUsers

Article12oftheOpinionsaddressestheliabilitystandardwhereAIGCinfringescopyrightofpriorworks.IndeterminingthecopyrightinfringementliabilityamongAldevelopers,Alservice

providersandAlusers,courtsshouldconsiderthefollowingfactors:

·ThetypeofAlservice—DifferentAlserviceshavedifferenttechnicalarchitectures,operatinglogicandriskprofiles;forexample,Alcontent-generationservicesmaycallforahigherdutyofcarethanAlinformation-queryservices.

·Thecharacteristicsoftherelevantindustry-IndustriesdifferintheirrelianceonanduseofAl,whichmayaffectthedutiesofcareofAldevelopersandserviceproviders.

·Thesourceoftrainingdata—ThelegalityoftrainingdataisanimportantconsiderationinassessinganAldeveloper'sconduct,andtheAldeveloperwhoraisesanon-infringementdefensemayneedtoexplainitsdatasourcesandtrainingprocess.

·Thelevelofparticipationbyeachparty—TheparticipationofAldevelopers,Alservice

providersandAlusersaffectstheirabilitytocontroltheinfringementandtheroleeachplaysingeneratingAIGCinfringingcontent.

·Thenecessarymeasurestakentopreventinfringement—WhetherAldevelopersorAlserviceprovidershavetakennecessarymeasuresisrelevanttowhethertheyhaveexercised

reasonablecare.IfanAldeveloperorAlserviceproviderfailstotakeprecautionarymeasuresdespiteknowingthatanAlmodelmayreliablygenerateinfringingAIGCthatissubstantiallysimilartopriorworks,thensuchAldeveloperorAlserviceprovidershallbefoundtohave

actedatfault.

·Theeconomicbenefitsorprofitsobtained-Whether,andtowhatextent,apartyprofitsfrominfringingAIGCisalsorelevanttotheallocationofliabilityamongallstakeholders.

Article12alsoprovidesthat,whereanAluserknowsorshouldknowabouttheexistenceofpriorcopyrightedworksbutnonethelessusesAltogenerateinfringingAIGCthatissubstantially

similartothepriorworks,theusershouldbefoundliableforcopyrightinfringement,absenta

statutorylicense,fairuseorotherreasonabledefenses.TheSPCExplanatoryArticlefurther

explainsthattheAlusermayactthroughprompts,parametersettings,inputmaterialsorsimilarmeansandcannotavoidliabilitymerelybyarguingthattheallegedlyinfringingcontentwas

generatedbyAI.

5

2.EvidentiaryObligationsofAIDevelopersRaisingaNon-InfringementDefense(Article12)

WhereanAldeveloperraisesanon-infringementdefense,Article12oftheOpinionsprovidesthatthecourtshouldordertheAldevelopertoprovideevidenceconcerningthesourceoftraining

data,training-processrecords,modeloperatingmechanismsandrelevantscientificandtheoreticalfoundations.

TheSPCExplanatoryArticleexplainsthatmuchoftheinformationnecessarytoestablishhowanAlmodeloperatesmaybeunavailabletoacopyrightownerorotherexternalclaimant.Atthe

sametime,Article12providesthatarightholderallegingthatanAlproviderusedalgorithmictechnologytoinfringecopyrightmustproviderelevantevidence.TheSPCExplanatoryArticleemphasizesthatthisallocationaddressesinformationasymmetrywithoutreversingthebasicburden-of-proofrule.

TheOpinionsalsomakeclearthatwhenAlisusedtofacilitateotherformsofintellectual

propertyinfringementorunfaircompetition,includingcounterfeiting,falseadvertising,trafficinflationandfakeorders,therelevantactorsmaybeheldliableunderapplicablelaw.

I.AIINFRINGEMENTOFPERSONALITYRIGHTS(ARTICLES4AND5)

TherapidcommercializationoftechnologiessuchasAlface-swapping,voicecloninganddigitalresurrectionhascreatednewformsofinfringement/misappropriationinvolvingindividuals'

names,likeness,voices,reputationandotherpersonalityinterests.

Article4oftheOpinionsmakesclearthatthelegalprotectionofpersonalityinterestsextendstocertainAl-generatedordigitallyreconstructedrepresentationsofindividuals.

1.AlInfringementofImages(Article4)

First,unauthorizedAlprocessingofanindividual'snameorlikenessmayconstitute

infringementwhereitgeneratesanidentifiablevirtualdigitalrepresentationofthatpersonandtherepresentationisusedorpubliclydisseminatedwithoutconsent.TheSPC

ExplanatoryArticlefurtherexplainsthattheconceptof"likeness"isnotlimitedtoaperson'sfacialfeatures;itcouldalsoextendtothatindividual'sclothing,bodymovementsorotherexternalcharacteristicssolongassuchfeaturesaresufficientforthepublictoidentifya

particularindividual.

2.AlInfringementofVoices(Article4)

Second,intermsofAlvoicecloning,theOpinionsexplainthatwherethegeneralpubliccan

identifyapersonbasedonvocalcharacteristicssuchastimbre,intonationorpronunciationstyle,thevoicemayfallwithintheprotectedscopeofthatindividual'svoicerightsandinterests.Article4itselfprovidesthatusinganindividual'svoiceasAltrainingmaterialwithoutconsentand

generatingsyntheticspeechthatallowstheindividualtobeidentifiedmayconstituteinfringement.

Further,theOpinionsaddressthattheunauthorizeduseinAIGCofanindividual'simageand/orvoicetoengageininappropriateconductordisseminationoffalsestatementsthatlowerhisorhersocialreputationmayconstituteinfringementofreputationrights.

3.ProtectionofDeceasedPeopleundertheAlAge(Article4)

Article4oftheOpinionsalsoaddressesthe"digitalresurrection"ofdeceasedpeople.WhereAltechnologyisusedwithoutauthorizationtocreateorexploitadeceasedperson'svirtualdigitalimageinamannerthatinfringesthedeceased'sname,likeness,reputationorotherprotectedpersonalityinterests,thecloserelativesofsuchdeceasedpersonmayseeklegalactionpursuanttoArticle994oftheCivilCode.

4.AlIntrusiononPrivacy(Article5)

Article5oftheOpinionsseparatelyaddressesAl-enabled"doxxing"(i.e.,usingAltotrackor

analyzepubliclyavailableinformationtouncoverprivateinformationaboutaspecificindividual)andotherprivacyintrusions.ItprovidesthatwhereAlisusedforthepurposeofpryingintoa

specificindividual'sprivacy,totrackortoanalyzepubliclyavailableinformationtoobtain

privateinformation,todiscloseorpublicizetheprivateinformationobtained,ortousesuchinformationtodisturbtheindividual'sprivatelife,suchconductconstitutesaninfringementoftherighttoprivacy.

IV.USEOFPUBLICLYAVAILABLEPERSONALINFORMATIONFORAIMODELTRAINING(ARTICLE6)

Article6oftheOpinionssetsouttheguidelinesastohowtoprocesspubliclyavailablepersonalinformationinAlmodeltraining.

6

·Consent

Inprinciple,whereanAldeveloperprocesses,withinareasonablescope,personalinformationthatanindividualhasvoluntarilymadepublicorthathasotherwisebeenlawfullymade

public,andthattheindividualhasnotexpresslyrefusedsuchprocessing,suchdataprocessingforAlmodeltrainingwillgenerallynotbetreatedasaninfringementoftheindividual's

personalinformationrights.However,wheretheprocessinghasamajorimpactontheindividual'srightsandinterests,theAldevelopermustobtainconsentinaccordancewithapplicablelaw.

TheSPCExplanatoryArticlefurtherexplainsthatwhereanindividualhas"expresslyrefused"

suchprocessingwhenmakingtheinformationpublic,orsubsequently"objectstosuch

processing"afterbecomingawarethattheinformationisbeingusedforAlmodeltraining,the

individual'sexpressrefusalthendefeatsthelegitimacyofthedataprocessing.Inotherwords,forAldevelopers,"publiclyavailable"personalinformationdoesnotmeanthatitis"freelyusable."

·WithinReasonableScope

Article6furtherprovidesthat,inassessingwhetherprocessingremainswithina"reasonable

scope,"courtsshouldconsider(1)thenecessityandappropriatenessoftheprocessingpurposeinlightofthemodel'sfunctions,(2)thetypeandsensitivityoftheinformationanditspotentialimpactonindividualrights,(3)thecontextofdisclosureand(4)thescopeofusethatthe

individualcouldreasonablyexpect.

V."SAFEHARBOR"PROTECTIONFORAISERVICEPROVIDERS(ARTICLE7)

Article7oftheOpinionsaddressestwoscenariosinvolvingGenAl-generatedinfringement:

contentautomaticallygeneratedbyGenAlthatinfringespersonalityrights,andinfringingcontentmaliciouslyinducedbyusersthroughprompts.

TheSPCExplanatoryArticleexplainsthatthetraditional"safeharbor"ornotice-and-action

frameworkmaybeappliedbyreferencetoGenAlserviceproviders:whereanAlserviceproviderreceivesnoticeofallegedinfringementandpromptlytakesreasonableandnecessary

measuresconsistentwithcurrenttechnologicalcapabilities,itgenerallyshouldnotbeartortliability.

8

TheSPCExplanatoryArticleexplainsthat"necessarymeasures"intheGenAlcontextmay

include:(1)blockinginstructions/promptsthatgenerateinfringingAIGC,(2)stoppingfurther

generationofinfringingcontent,and(3)warning,restrictingorsuspendingservicesforinfringingusers.TheSPCExplanatoryArticlefurtherexplainsthattheadequacyofsuchmeasuresshouldbeassessedunderafault-basedstandard,takingintoaccounttheirreasonablenessandtimelinessinlightofcurrenttechnologicalcapabilities.

VI.PATENTPROTECTIONFORAl-ASSISTEDINVENTIONS(ARTICLE14)

TheOpinionsalsoclarifythetreatmentofinventionscreatedwiththeassistanceofAI.

Article14oftheOpinionsprovidesthatanAl-relatedinventionmayconstitutepatentablesubjectmatterwhereitusestechnicalmeansthatfollowthelawsofnature,solvesatechnicalproblem,andproducesatechnicaleffectconsistentwiththelawsofnature,unlessitviolateslawsorsocialmorality,harmspublicinterests,ornonaturalpersonhasmadeasubstantivecontribution.

Article14furtherprovidesthatwhereanaturalpersonusesAltocompleteaninventionandhasmadeacreativecontributiontothesubstantivefeaturesoftheinvention,thatnaturalpersonshouldberecognizedastheinventor.Article14alsoprovidesthatAl-relatedpatent

specificationsmustsatisfythesufficient-disclosurerequirement.

VII.AUTONOMOUSANDASSISTEDDRIVINGSYSTEMS(ARTICLE11)

Article11oftheOpinionsspecificallydiscussestheliabilityarisingfromaccidentsinvolving

autonomousvehiclesorvehiclesequippedwithassisted-drivingfunctions,whichshouldbe

determinedundertheCivilCodeandtheRoadTrafficSafetyLaw.TheSPCExplanatoryArticle

notesthatcurrentdisputesprimarilyinvolvevehiclesequippedwithassisted-drivingfunctionsatLevel2orbelow,forwhichtraditionaltraffic-accidentrulescontinuetoapply.

Whereanaccidentresultsfromaproductdefectinanautonomousorassisted-drivingvehicle,theinjuredpartymayseekproductliabilityagainstthemanufacturerorseller.Whereadefectinanassisted-drivingvehiclecontributestothedamageandthedriverisalsoatfault,theinjuredpartymayseekcompensationfromboththedriverandthevehiclemanufacturerorseller.

TheOpinionsalsoaddressmisleadingcommercialrepresentations.Wheremanufacturersor

sellersmakefalseormisleadingclaimsregardingavehicle'slevelofautomation,intelligenc