On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China released the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见). The Opinions comprise five parts and 24 articles and are the first set of judicial adjudication rules concerning artificial intelligence issued by China’s highest judicial body. They are framed as guidance for lower courts applying existing law – the Civil Code, Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, Copyright Law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Protection Law, Personal Information Protection Law, and Civil Procedure Law – to AI-related civil and criminal disputes, on the express premise that China has not yet enacted dedicated AI legislation.

Substantively, the Opinions devote a full section to intellectual property, addressing infringement liability for AI-generated content that infringes copyright, including the burden on developers asserting non-infringement to produce training data sources, training process records, and model operation modes (Article XII); liability allocation among open-source software developers, providers, and downstream developers, with express provision for appropriate liability exemptions (Article XIII); patent subject-matter eligibility, inventorship where a natural person makes a creative contribution to the substantive features of an AI-assisted invention, and sufficiency of disclosure (Article XIV); breach standards for AI technology development, transfer, licensing, consulting, and service contracts (Article XV); and protection of data and datasets as compilation works, trade secrets, or under Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Article XVI). Beyond IP, the Opinions address personality-rights infringement arising from AI training and generation, regulating “AI face-swapping and voice cloning” and “AI resurrection of the deceased”—using a natural person’s voice as training corpus to generate an identifiable synthetic voice, or generating and publishing an identifiable virtual digital likeness, without consent gives rise to liability for infringement of name, portrait, or voice rights (Article IV) – along with “network doxing” conducted by AI aggregation of published information (Article V) and the conditions under which training on self-published or lawfully published personal information falls within a “reasonable scope” (Article VI). The Opinions also set out liability rules for road traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles with driver-assist functions, including product-liability claims against manufacturers and sellers for vehicle defects, concurrent liability where a defect and driver fault combine to cause the same harm, liability for false or misleading advertising of automation level and performance, and the court’s authority to order data controllers to produce autonomous-driving and driver-assist records needed to establish accident causation (Article XI).

Absent from the Opinions, however, is any direct rule on the copyrightability of AI-generated works themselves – that is, whether content generated with AI constitutes a “work” protected under the Copyright Law. The omission stands out because the Beijing Internet Court had already addressed the question. In its set of eight Typical Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence (涉人工智能典型案例) released September 10, 2025, Case I (Li v. Liu) held that a Stable Diffusion output was a copyrightable work of fine art and that the user who selected the model, entered prompts and reverse prompts, set generation parameters, and made the final selection was the author—reasoning that an AI model cannot itself be an author because Chinese copyright law limits authorship to natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations. Case VII similarly held that virtual digital human images reflecting a production team’s aesthetic choices as to line, color, and character design constitute protected works of art. Neither copyright decision was designated a typical case by the SPC; the SPC designations went instead to the Beijing Internet Court’s personality-rights rulings—Case II (Yin), extending voice rights to AI-synthesized voices identifiable by timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style, and Case VIII (He), extending personality rights to a natural person’s AI-generated virtual image and selected as a “Typical Civil Case on the Judicial Protection of Personality Rights after the Promulgation of the Civil Code.” The SPC then removed the issue from that court’s docket altogether: on October 10, 2025, it released the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts (最高人民法院关于互联网法院案件管辖的规定), effective November 1, 2025, which amended the 2018 Provisions to strip Internet Courts of jurisdiction over “copyright or neighboring rights disputes involving works first published online” and “disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights in works published or disseminated online,” on the stated rationale that Internet Courts should hear “new, cutting-edge, and complex online cases” while “general and traditional online cases are heard by other local courts.” Between the Opinions’ silence, the absence of SPC endorsement for the Beijing rulings that reached the issue, and the reassignment of online copyright disputes away from the court that developed the jurisprudence, the copyrightability of AI-generated output remains unresolved at the national level.

A translation of the Opinions on Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in Accordance with the Law follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).

In order to fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and its subsequent plenary sessions, to serve and safeguard the accelerated development of new productive forces through strict and impartial justice, and to guide people’s courts at all levels in adjudicating cases involving artificial intelligence disputes in accordance with the law, the following opinions are put forward based on relevant laws such as the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and in light of the actual work of the people’s courts.

I. General Requirements

(I) Guiding Principles

Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we will thoroughly implement Xi Jinping’s thought on the rule of law, earnestly implement General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important thought on building a strong cyber power, deeply recognize that artificial intelligence is an important driving force for the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, adhere to the principle of giving equal importance to development and security, and combine the promotion of innovation with governance according to law. We will adjudicate cases involving artificial intelligence disputes fairly and impartially in accordance with the law, promote the improvement of the safety, reliability, controllability, and fairness of artificial intelligence technology applications, and provide strong judicial services and guarantees for comprehensively advancing the construction of a strong country and the great cause of national rejuvenation through Chinese-style modernization.

(II) Basic Principles

Upholding a people-centered approach, we will leverage the guiding role of judicial decisions to actively promote artificial intelligence in enhancing people’s well-being and effectively strengthen judicial protection of people’s rights and interests in the digital age. We will actively and steadily explore and improve judicial rules and mechanisms in the field of artificial intelligence, including those related to algorithm ethics and rules. We will make full use of existing legal provisions to properly address the rule conflicts, social risks, and ethical challenges brought about by the development of artificial intelligence technology. We will promote the improvement of the corporate social responsibility system for artificial intelligence enterprises, focus on preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination, legally protect individuals’ right to know and right to choose in automated decision-making, prevent and regulate the abuse of artificial intelligence technology to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and promote artificial intelligence for the benefit of the people and for good.

Support innovative development. Respect the laws of scientific and technological innovation and the development practices of the artificial intelligence industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation with judicial rulings that conform to the spirit of laws and policies and the laws of technological development. Explore new judicial protection pathways for rights and interests, and continuously strengthen the protection of innovative achievements, innovative entities, innovative behaviors, and the innovative environment in artificial intelligence. Balance rights protection and technological industry development with an inclusive and prudent attitude, and create a favorable environment that encourages exploration and tolerates failure. Regulate monopolies or unfair competition implemented using artificial intelligence technology in accordance with the law, and legally guarantee the equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal rules for relevant entities in developing and utilizing artificial intelligence technology, and strengthen the equal protection of the rights and interests of small and medium-sized enterprises and other business entities. Through the fair, just, and efficient adjudication of artificial intelligence-related disputes, actively guide and promote the deep integration of the Internet, big data, artificial intelligence, and the real economy, help cultivate and strengthen the artificial intelligence industry, and maximize the enormous potential of artificial intelligence to empower high-quality economic and social development.

Strengthen the bottom line of security. Based on the specific harm and the nature and magnitude of risks that artificial intelligence may cause to the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects in different application scenarios, legal responsibility should be accurately determined in accordance with the law. The differences in technical principles, risk spillover, and control capabilities of different types of large models, such as general-purpose and special-purpose, open-source and closed-source, should be distinguished to reasonably allocate the legal responsibilities of developers, providers, and users. The principle of combining leniency with severity in criminal policy should be fully and accurately implemented. For crimes committed intentionally using artificial intelligence to endanger national security, infringe upon citizens’ rights, or disrupt social order, they should be resolutely and severely punished according to law; for innovative behaviors in the research and application of artificial intelligence, they should be handled prudently according to law, adhering to the principles of legality and proportionality between crime and punishment.

II. Properly handle cases involving infringement related to artificial intelligence in accordance with the law, and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects.

(III) Accurately Grasp the Principles of Liability for Artificial Intelligence-Related Infringements. Accurately apply the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Product Quality Law, the Road Traffic Safety Law, and other relevant laws to legally determine the legal liability arising from the infringement of civil rights through artificial intelligence. Where the law does not explicitly stipulate the application of no-fault liability or presumed fault liability, the principle of fault liability stipulated in Article 1165, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code should be used to determine whether the actor bears tort liability. In judging whether the actor is at fault and the degree of fault, comprehensive consideration should be given to factors such as the specific scenario of the artificial intelligence application, its degree of autonomy, technological and information transparency, potential risks and scope of impact, the measures and technical possibilities taken by artificial intelligence developers, providers, and other relevant entities to prevent and reduce artificial intelligence infringements, and the ability of artificial intelligence users to foresee and control the potential damage caused by tortious acts committed using artificial intelligence technology.

(IV) Regulating in accordance with laws and regulations acts such as “AI face-swapping and voice-mimicking” and “AI resurrecting the deceased” that infringe upon personality rights through generative artificial intelligence. The use of generative artificial intelligence to process the name, portrait, etc., of a specific natural person or deceased person shall not violate laws and regulations, nor contravene public order and good morals. Unless otherwise provided by law, if, without the consent of the natural person, artificial intelligence is used to process the name, portrait, etc., of a natural person to generate a virtual digital image that can identify that natural person, and this image is used and published, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed upon their personality rights such as the right to their name and portrait, the People’s Court shall support such claims in accordance with law. Unless otherwise provided by law, if, without the consent of the natural person, the voice of a natural person is used as training material to imitate the natural person’s timbre, tone, and pronunciation style to generate a synthetic human voice that can identify that natural person, and the natural person claims that the actor has infringed upon their voice rights, the People’s Court shall support such claims in accordance with law. If a person manipulates a generated synthetic virtual digital image or voice that can identify a specific natural person to engage in improper conduct or publish false statements, thereby lowering the social evaluation of that natural person or others, the People’s Court shall determine that this constitutes an infringement of the right to reputation in accordance with law. If a person uses artificial intelligence technology to create or use a virtual digital image of a deceased person without authorization, resulting in infringement upon the deceased’s name, image, or reputation, and the deceased’s close relatives request the perpetrator to bear civil liability in accordance with Article 994 of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support such request in accordance with the law.

(V) Regulate, in accordance with the law, acts that infringe upon the privacy rights of natural persons, such as “online unboxing” and “doxxing,” using artificial intelligence for the purpose of spying on privacy, including tracking and analyzing publicly available information such as the phone numbers, online accounts, and social media accounts of specific natural persons to obtain private information, or disclosing or publishing the obtained private information, or using the obtained information to disturb the peace of private life, shall be deemed an infringement of the right to privacy. Acts such as photographing, spying, or eavesdropping on the private space and private activities of specific natural persons using artificial intelligence shall be deemed an infringement of the right to privacy, unless otherwise provided by law or with the explicit consent of the natural person.

(VI) Legally Determining Civil Liability for Infringement of Personal Information Rights During Artificial Intelligence Training. Processing personal information that an individual has voluntarily disclosed or that has already been legally disclosed within a reasonable scope for the training of an artificial intelligence model, and where the individual has not explicitly refused, is generally not considered an infringement of personal information rights. If it has a significant impact on an individual’s rights, the individual’s consent must be obtained in accordance with the law. When determining a reasonable scope, factors such as the purpose of processing personal information, the necessity and appropriateness of the model’s function, the type and sensitivity of the personal information involved, its potential impact on the individual’s rights, the context in which the information is disclosed, and the reasonably foreseeable scope of use should be comprehensively considered.

(VII) Prudently determine the tort liability of generative artificial intelligence service providers. If content automatically generated by generative artificial intelligence infringes upon the reputation rights, privacy rights, or other personality rights of others, and the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to take necessary measures, such as ceasing the generation of infringing content, after being notified by the rights holder, it shall bear tort liability for the resulting damages in accordance with the law. The notification shall include preliminary evidence of the infringement and the true identity information of the rights holder. If a network user maliciously induces generative artificial intelligence to generate infringing content and causes harm to others by inputting infringing prompts, the network user shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law; if, after being notified by the rights holder, the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to take necessary measures, such as ceasing the generation of infringing content and blocking relevant generation instructions, and the rights holder requests the network user and the generative artificial intelligence service provider to bear civil liability in accordance with Article 1195 of the Civil Code, the people’s court shall support such a request in accordance with the law.

(VIII) Application of the injunction system for infringement of personality rights in accordance with the law. If a natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization has evidence proving that a person is using artificial intelligence to commit or is about to commit an illegal act that infringes upon their personality rights, and that failure to stop it in a timely manner will cause irreparable damage to their legitimate rights, they may apply to the People’s Court for measures to order the person to cease the relevant act or to order the relevant network service provider or generative artificial intelligence service provider to cease providing the relevant service. The People’s Court may, in accordance with the law, issue an injunction for infringement of personality rights. When issuing an injunction for infringement of personality rights, the People’s Court shall take into account factors such as the type of personality rights infringed, the manner of the illegal act, and the scope and degree of potential damage, and shall not exceed the necessary limits.

(IX) Accurately Determining Liability for Artificial Intelligence Products. People’s courts shall, in accordance with the definition of “product” in the Product Quality Law, accurately determine artificial intelligence products that are physical objects and apply the corresponding legal rules. If a defect in an artificial intelligence product causes damage, the producer and seller shall bear product liability in accordance with the law. When determining whether an artificial intelligence product poses an unreasonable danger to personal safety or property, the nature and purpose of the artificial intelligence product, its self-learning ability, upgrade and update status, the user’s degree of control over the system, and whether it complies with relevant national and industry standards should be comprehensively considered. Special attention should be paid to whether the producer and seller have provided truthful explanations and clear warnings regarding the applicable scenarios, inherent limitations, and foreseeable risks of the artificial intelligence product.

(X) Regulate acts that infringe upon consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, such as “big data price discrimination” and “impersonating celebrities to sell goods,” in accordance with the law. If a business operator uses algorithms to impose unreasonable differential treatment on transaction prices and other transaction conditions for the same product or service, thereby infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others and causing damage, the people’s court shall determine that the operator bears corresponding tort liability in accordance with the law. In determining whether unreasonable differential treatment constitutes a violation, the court shall comprehensively consider whether the differential treatment substantially restricts or damages consumers’ right to know, right to choose independently, and right to fair trade; whether the transaction conditions are based on consumers’ consumption preferences, willingness to pay, ability to pay, browsing history, and other information targeting them personally; and whether it violates the principle of good faith and business ethics. The court shall also comprehensively consider whether the reasons for implementing differential treatment are justified, sufficient, and non-discriminatory. If a business operator uses artificial intelligence to implement “impersonating celebrities to sell goods” and constitutes fraud when providing goods or services, and consumers claim punitive damages in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the people’s court shall support such claims in accordance with the law.

(XI) Determining liability for damages in traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles and vehicles with driver assistance functions. Where an autonomous vehicle or vehicle with driver assistance functions is involved in a traffic accident causing damage, liability for damages shall be borne in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law. Where a traffic accident causes damage due to a product defect in the vehicle, and the parties request the manufacturer or seller to bear liability for damages in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of Part VII of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support such a request. Where a vehicle with driver assistance functions causes the same damage due to a combination of vehicle defects and the driver’s fault, and the parties request both the driver and the vehicle manufacturer or seller to bear liability for damages in accordance with Article 1172 of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support such a request in accordance with the law. Where vehicle manufacturers or sellers make false or misleading claims regarding the automation level, intelligence, performance, or uses of autonomous vehicles or vehicles with driver assistance functions, thereby harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and consumers request vehicle manufacturers or sellers to bear civil liability in accordance with the Civil Code, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and other relevant laws, the People’s Court shall support such a request in accordance with the law. In order to determine the cause of a road traffic accident, the people’s court may require the vehicle manufacturer, seller or operator, or other data controller, to provide, within the necessary scope, true and complete records of autonomous driving and assisted driving events, and other data necessary to ascertain the facts of the case.

III. Properly handle intellectual property disputes involving artificial intelligence in accordance with the law to ensure the high-quality development and high-level security of artificial intelligence.

(XII) Legally regulating acts that infringe intellectual property rights related to artificial intelligence. When content generated by artificial intelligence infringes on the copyrights of others, the people’s court shall comprehensively consider factors such as the type of artificial intelligence service, industry characteristics, source of training data, participation of all parties, necessary measures taken, and profits gained, and reasonably determine the responsibilities of the artificial intelligence developer, provider, and user in accordance with the law. If an artificial intelligence developer raises a defense of non-infringement, they shall be ordered to provide evidence such as the source of training data, training process records, model operation mode, and scientific theoretical basis. If a rights holder claims that an artificial intelligence provider infringes on their copyright using algorithmic technology, they shall provide relevant evidence. If an artificial intelligence user knows or should know of the existence of a prior work, and uses artificial intelligence to generate a work substantially similar to the prior work without reasonable defense, the people’s court shall support the prior work rights holder’s request for them to bear infringement liability. Those who use artificial intelligence to engage in infringing, counterfeiting, false advertising, fraudulent transactions, or other acts that infringe on the rights of others or constitute unfair competition shall bear corresponding legal responsibility.

(XIII) Determine the legal liability of parties involved in open-source software related to artificial intelligence in accordance with the law. When adjudicating cases involving open-source software, the determination of the tort liability of open-source software developers, providers, and subsequent developers and providers should comprehensively consider factors such as the type of open-source license agreement, the specific content of the restrictions on rights, security compliance measures, and the degree of information disclosure, and grant appropriate liability exemptions to open-source software developers and providers in accordance with the law. If an open-source software developer or provider provides some code modules needed for the research and development of artificial intelligence software in a free and open-source manner, and publicly explains its functions and security risks, and others infringe upon these code modules, the people’s court may determine that the open-source software developer or provider is not liable for tort.

(XIV) Regulating Patent Granting and Confirmation Procedures for Artificial Intelligence Inventions and Creations in Accordance with the Law. Where an invention or creation related to artificial intelligence employs technical means that follow the laws of nature, solves a technical problem, and achieves technical effects that conform to the laws of nature, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, recognize it as an object protected by the Patent Law, except where it violates the law, social morality, harms the public interest, or where the natural person has not made a substantial contribution. Where a natural person uses artificial intelligence to complete an invention or creation, and that natural person has made a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention or creation, that natural person shall be recognized as the inventor. Where the description of the technical solution in the patent specification related to artificial intelligence reaches a level that enables a person skilled in the art to implement the invention, it shall be deemed to meet the conditions for sufficient disclosure for patent grant.

(XV) Determine liability for breach of contract in accordance with the law and with due care. When hearing disputes involving contracts for the development, transfer, licensing, consulting, and services of artificial intelligence technology, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the contract, fully consider the characteristics of artificial intelligence technology research and development, whether the technology developer has made reasonable efforts, and other relevant circumstances to determine liability for breach of contract.

(XVI) Regulating the Use of Artificial Intelligence Data in Accordance with the Law. People’s courts shall protect the rights and interests of artificial intelligence developers who legally acquire data and enjoy corresponding data rights through means such as collection and generation, derivative creation, transfer, or licensing. Data or data sets that constitute compilations or meet the elements of other works shall be protected in accordance with the Copyright Law. Data or data sets that constitute trade secrets shall be protected in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. For data or data sets that do not constitute trade secrets, if the alleged infringing act violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the responsible party shall bear legal liability. Operators who use data, algorithms, or other technical means to reach monopoly agreements or abuse their market dominance shall bear corresponding legal liability. Those who use fabricated interference data, maliciously labeled data, or adversarial sample attacks to damage the operational security of artificial intelligence shall bear corresponding legal liability.

IV. Improve the rules of procedure for handling disputes involving artificial intelligence, and punish, in accordance with the law, illegal and criminal acts such as those that use generative artificial intelligence to disrupt judicial order.

(XVII) Accurately ascertain the facts of disputes involving artificial intelligence in accordance with the law. Given the highly technical and specialized nature of such disputes, the People’s Court should strengthen litigation guidance and explanation in accordance with the law, guiding the parties to complete the presentation of evidence in a timely and comprehensive manner regarding the disputed facts. If a party is unable to collect evidence on their own due to objective reasons, they may apply to the People’s Court for investigation and collection; when necessary, the People’s Court may investigate and collect evidence ex officio. If a party applies for evidence preservation to secure key technologies, the People’s Court should review it promptly in accordance with the law. If a party controlling documentary evidence, electronic data, or other evidence refuses to submit it without justifiable reason, and the opposing party claims that the content of the evidence is unfavorable to the controlling party, the People’s Court may determine that the claim is valid. For professional issues involving the principles and operating mechanisms of artificial intelligence technology, the People’s Court should, in accordance with the law, fully utilize the roles of people’s assessors, expert witnesses, expert assistants, and technical investigators to assist in ascertaining the facts of the case.

(XVIII) Explore and improve the rules for reviewing evidence in disputes involving artificial intelligence. People’s courts should fully consider the complexity of artificial intelligence technology, the opacity of its operation, and the special nature of evidence collection, and continuously improve the rules for reviewing evidence to adapt to the development of new technologies. The authenticity and completeness of the generation, collection, storage, and transmission of electronic data should be the focus of review. Differentiated review focuses should be established for evidence generated by different information technologies such as big data and blockchain. For big data analysis reports, the focus should be on reviewing the source of the original data, the cleaning rules, and the scientific validity of the analysis methods; for blockchain-based evidence, the focus should be on reviewing the authenticity of the data before it is uploaded to the blockchain and the reliability of the technology platform. When a party uses AI-generated content as evidence of infringement, the people’s court should comprehensively consider the design of the prompts and their impact on the generated results, the similarity between the generated content and the work claiming rights, the consistency of repeated testing, and factors such as model training, algorithm design, and content filtering mechanisms.

(XIX) Regulating acts that disrupt judicial order, such as improper evidence collection using artificial intelligence, in accordance with the law. If a party uses the autonomous learning and decision-making characteristics of artificial intelligence to obtain false evidence through human intervention or misleading means such as deleting or altering generated synthetic content identifiers, inputting specific instructions, selectively presenting results, or engaging in adversarial interference, fabricating basic facts of a civil case, and engaging in false litigation in an attempt to infringe upon national interests, public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others, the people’s court shall reject their claims in accordance with the law and impose fines or detention according to the severity of the circumstances; if a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. If a litigation participant or other person uses artificial intelligence to forge evidence and obstructs the people’s court from hearing a case, it shall be dealt with in accordance with Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law. If litigation participants submit litigation documents, case retrieval reports, or other materials generated using artificial intelligence, they shall carefully verify the authenticity and accuracy of relevant laws, judicial interpretations, cases, etc., before submitting them to the court, explain the use of artificial intelligence assistance when submitting them to the court, and bear legal responsibility for the authenticity and accuracy of the relevant content.

(XX) Punish crimes committed using artificial intelligence in accordance with the law. Anyone who uses artificial intelligence to commit fraud, insult, defamation, damage to business reputation or product reputation, infringe upon citizens’ personal information, illegally obtain data from computer information systems, or produce, sell, or disseminate obscene materials, and whose actions constitute a crime, shall be held criminally liable in accordance with the law. Anyone who activates the driver assistance function and then uses privately installed accessories to evade the monitoring of the driver assistance system, resulting in a road traffic accident, and whose actions constitute a crime, shall be held criminally liable in accordance with the law.

V. Strengthen guidance on the adjudication of disputes involving artificial intelligence and continuously improve the working mechanism.

(XXI) Fully Leverage the Role of Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. People’s courts should actively utilize diversified dispute resolution mechanisms to properly resolve disputes involving artificial intelligence (AI), promote the establishment of collaborative mechanisms with AI industry regulatory authorities, industry-specific professional mediation organizations, and AI experts and scholars, and jointly carry out dispute resolution work, ensuring effective preliminary mediation. Based on their judicial functions, people’s courts should promote the rule of law in preventing and resolving AI-related disputes, actively clarify rights and obligations and define behavioral boundaries through open court hearings and case-based legal education, leverage the exemplary role of judicial rulings, and promote the prevention and timely resolution of AI-related disputes at their source.

(XXII) Strengthen judicial supervision and guidance. Actively standardize the application of higher-level jurisdiction, strengthen the exemplary role, and effectively implement judicial supervision and guidance. For AI-related disputes involving significant interests, complex and novel types, those with rule-establishing significance, and those requiring unified legal application standards, the higher-level people’s courts shall conduct the trials at a higher level. Make full use of the people’s court case database to strengthen case guidance work and promote the unification of legal application and the improvement of AI governance rules.

(XXIII) Strengthen inter-departmental collaboration. Fully leverage judicial functions to serve national and social governance through various means such as issuing judicial recommendations and establishing cooperation mechanisms. Strengthen coordination and collaboration with departments such as cyberspace administration, public security, procuratorate, and market supervision to establish and implement a long-term comprehensive governance mechanism. Guide relevant enterprises, platforms, and industry associations to regulate and self-govern, and promote the formation of a comprehensive protection force across the entire chain of artificial intelligence industry self-regulation, administrative supervision, and judicial safeguards.

(XXIV) Strengthen international judicial exchanges and cooperation. Properly handle cross-border disputes involving artificial intelligence and data. On the basis of adhering to the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, promote foreign-related judicial exchanges and cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence, strengthen the alignment and mutual learning of rules, promote the construction of a more fair, reasonable, inclusive and open artificial intelligence governance system, and promote and protect the diversity of the artificial intelligence ecosystem and human civilization.

Supreme People’s Court

September 7, 2026