On 7 September 2026, China's Supreme People's Court issued its Opinions on Adjudicating AI-Related Disputes, a judicial guidance document comprising 24 provisions organised in five thematic parts. The Opinions do not introduce new legislation but clarify how existing statutes – including the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law, the Copyright Law, and the Personal Information Protection Law – apply to disputes involving artificial intelligence. International companies operating in or supplying services to China should review the guidance promptly, as it establishes enforceable standards through the court system rather than through a future rulemaking process.
What the Supreme People's Court Guidance Covers
The Opinions address five broad areas that have generated rising litigation in Chinese courts. Taken together, they signal that the judiciary intends to resolve AI disputes under the current statutory framework rather than wait for dedicated AI legislation. The five thematic parts cover personality rights, liability for AI-generated content, platform duties, algorithmic conduct, and evidentiary matters.
Key substantive positions established by the guidance include:
- Personality rights and biometric data. Unauthorised replication of a person's face or voice using AI constitutes an infringement of personality rights under the Civil Code. This standard applies regardless of whether the replica is created for commercial or non-commercial purposes, and regardless of the technical method used.
- Fault-based liability with notice-and-action duties. AI service providers operate under a fault-based liability framework. Where a provider receives notice of infringing or harmful AI-generated content, it is required to act; failure to do so following a valid notice can shift or intensify liability exposure.
- Algorithmic price discrimination. The guidance addresses the use of algorithmic systems to charge different prices to different users based on inferred characteristics. Such conduct is treated as potentially unlawful under existing consumer protection and fair competition principles.
- AI-generated false information. The dissemination of false information produced or amplified by AI systems is addressed within the defamation and cybersecurity frameworks. Both platform operators and content originators may bear responsibility depending on the circumstances.
- Copyright and AI-generated output. The Opinions engage with the question of copyright subsistence in AI-generated works, applying existing Copyright Law principles. Questions of authorship and originality are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Because this is judicial guidance rather than regulation, it takes effect through the adjudication of concrete disputes before People's Courts and through CIETAC arbitral proceedings that reference court precedent. There is no separate implementation deadline – the Opinions applied immediately upon issuance on 7 September 2026.
Who Is Affected
The guidance is broadly relevant to any entity that develops, deploys, or integrates AI systems in a way that touches Chinese users, Chinese data, or Chinese-hosted services. In practical terms, the following categories face the most immediate exposure:
- Technology companies and platform operators that provide AI-driven content generation, recommendation, or personalisation features to users in China.
- E-commerce and retail businesses that use algorithmic pricing engines, particularly those that adjust prices based on user profiling or behavioural signals – a practice the Opinions scrutinise for algorithmic price discrimination.
- Media, entertainment, and marketing companies that create synthetic voice or facial content, including deepfake-adjacent promotional material, product demonstrations, or virtual influencers.
- Financial services providers that rely on AI-generated reports, recommendations, or disclosures directed at Chinese clients.
- Employers using AI in HR processes, including automated screening, performance monitoring, or workplace surveillance involving biometric inputs. Organisations should also assess whether existing employment contracts and internal policies adequately address AI-specific risks.
SAMR and the CAC have existing regulatory remits that interact directly with the areas covered by the Opinions. The judicial guidance does not supersede or alter those regulatory frameworks; it operates alongside them, meaning that a single AI-related incident may give rise to parallel regulatory and litigation exposure.
If your organisation uses AI tools that involve Chinese employees, customers, or data subjects, our team can assess your exposure under both the new judicial guidance and the applicable regulatory requirements. Contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange a preliminary discussion.
Relationship to Existing AI Regulation in China
China's approach to AI governance has developed through sector-specific administrative measures rather than a single comprehensive statute. The Supreme People's Court Opinions sit within that layered architecture. The CAC's measures on algorithmic recommendation, deep synthesis, and generative AI services impose administrative obligations on providers; the Opinions now indicate how courts will adjudicate private disputes arising from similar conduct.
Algorithmic transparency – already required to varying degrees under the CAC's administrative framework – is also implicated by the Opinions' treatment of algorithmic price discrimination. Businesses that have invested in algorithmic transparency compliance for regulatory purposes will find that work relevant to their litigation risk posture as well.
For international companies familiar with the EU's AI Act compliance requirements, it is worth noting that the Chinese approach differs structurally: rather than a classification system based on high-risk AI systems or general-purpose AI model tiers overseen by an AI Office, China relies on a combination of administrative sector regulation and, now, judicially articulated standards applied through existing civil and criminal law. The two regimes should be tracked in parallel rather than assumed to be equivalent. A comparative overview of EU timing is available in our alert on AI Act Omnibus deadlines in the EU.
Immediate Action Items for International Companies
Given that the Opinions took effect immediately and apply through ongoing litigation, there is no grace period within which to achieve compliance. The following steps are appropriate for most affected organisations:
- Audit AI-generated content pipelines for any use of voice synthesis, facial replication, or avatar generation involving real individuals, and confirm that written consents are in place and legally adequate under the Civil Code's personality rights provisions.
- Review notice-and-action procedures. AI service providers should confirm that internal processes exist to receive, assess, and act upon notices of infringing or harmful AI-generated content within a timeframe that demonstrates good faith under the fault-based liability standard.
- Assess algorithmic pricing systems for evidence of user-characteristic-based price differentiation, and document the legitimate business rationale for any differential pricing that is retained.
- Update contracts and terms of service to reflect the judicial standards articulated in the Opinions, particularly regarding liability allocation between platform operators, AI developers, and end users.
- Map overlapping regulatory and litigation exposure. Where an AI system is already subject to CAC or SAMR oversight, identify the specific provisions of the Opinions that could generate parallel private claims and adjust risk management accordingly.
Employment-related AI use – such as AI-assisted hiring, performance management, or workforce monitoring involving biometric data – deserves particular attention given the Opinions' treatment of personality rights. Further guidance on the employment law dimension is available through our China employment law practice.
Dispute Resolution Considerations
The Opinions are directed at People's Courts adjudicating domestic litigation. However, their standards will likely be referenced in CIETAC arbitration proceedings where Chinese law governs, and in cross-border disputes where a Chinese court asserts jurisdiction over a foreign entity. International companies with operations or users in China should review their dispute resolution clauses to ensure they reflect the updated judicial landscape.
Evidence of AI-generated content – its provenance, modification history, and technical characteristics – raises specific questions of authentication that the Opinions acknowledge. Businesses should consider whether their current data retention and audit log practices would support their position in contentious proceedings.
Our China AI law team regularly advises on contentious and pre-contentious AI matters, including strategic review of AI systems under the judicial guidance and applicable administrative frameworks. For further information, please see our China AI law services page or reach out directly at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme People's Court Opinions represent a significant moment in the maturation of China's AI governance framework. By clarifying how existing law applies to AI-related disputes, the court has lowered the threshold for litigation and strengthened the hand of claimants in cases involving biometric replication, algorithmically discriminatory pricing, and AI-generated disinformation. The guidance is likely to be supplemented over time by judicial interpretations and illustrative cases published by the court.
International companies should treat the Opinions not as a one-time compliance exercise but as a prompt to embed AI-specific legal review into ongoing product development, commercial operations, and risk management cycles in China. Where the interaction between the Chinese judicial standards and obligations under other jurisdictions' AI frameworks – such as the EU AI Act or national implementing measures – creates complexity, a cross-border legal assessment may be warranted.
To discuss how the Supreme People's Court guidance applies to your organisation's specific AI activities in China, please contact Ferraz & Whitmore at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.