Safeguard Legitimate Rights and Interests, Convey the Warmth of Rule of Law (Rule of Law Focus)

(Original Title: A Batch of Typical Cases Included in the Supreme Court and Supreme Procuratorate Work Reports, Protecting Legal Rights and Conveying the Temperature of the Rule of Law (Legal Focus))

Editor’s Note: The cases mentioned in the work reports of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate have attracted widespread public attention: a case of artificial intelligence infringement demonstrating judicial guidance toward kindness for emerging technologies; a “box-opening” online case highlighting judicial attitudes toward protecting citizens’ personal privacy; a self-defense case reaffirming the justice principle that “the law cannot yield to the unlawful”; a case safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers, conveying warm care for new employment groups… This report focuses on typical cases from the work reports of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate, highlighting the legal practices and beneficial explorations by courts and procuratorates in protecting the lawful rights of the people.

AI-Generated Inaccurate Information, Service Providers Not Liable

【Case Details】In June 2025, Liang used a generative artificial intelligence application to inquire about admission information for a university. The AI generated incorrect information about the university’s main campus. Liang corrected the information during the conversation, but the AI still responded that the campus indeed existed and even offered to compensate the user with 100,000 yuan if the information was wrong. Only after Liang provided the university’s admission details did the AI acknowledge that it had generated inaccurate information.

Liang believed that since the AI promised compensation, the technology company should be responsible. The inaccurate information misled him and caused damages, so he sued the technology company for 9,999 yuan in damages.

【Legal Opinion】The Hangzhou Internet Court held that artificial intelligence does not have civil subject capacity and cannot make declarations of intent. Furthermore, the AI’s self-generated “compensation promise” cannot be regarded as an expression of service providers’ intent. The generative AI involved is a service, not a product, and the strict liability principle does not apply.

The court noted that providers of generative AI technology should strictly review toxic, harmful, or illegal information prohibited by law. For other general inaccuracies, current laws do not specify clear regulations. Requiring the company to verify the accuracy of the massive generated content exceeds current technological capabilities. Additionally, the company had already prominently displayed a reminder about the limitations of AI-generated content, fulfilling its duty to inform, and thus was not at fault.

【Expert Commentary】Professor Cheng Xiao from Tsinghua University Law School stated that this is China’s first case involving infringement caused by hallucinations of generative AI models. The core legal dispute also reflects a highly focused issue among domestic and international academia and practitioners. The Hangzhou Internet Court, after carefully balancing the protection of civil rights and encouraging AI development, made a legally sound ruling on this matter, which has significant theoretical and practical importance.

“Box-Opening” Online Not a Game; Offenders Must Compensate and Face Administrative or Criminal Penalties

【Case Details】Between 2023 and January 2024, defendants Zhao and Cheng, as administrators of specific channels and chat groups on Telegram, illegally obtained citizens’ personal information. They publicly shared the illegally acquired personal data and movement traces in these channels and groups, and posted illegal content such as insults, defamation, and rumors targeting others. The Telegram channels had over 30,000 member accounts, and the groups over 5,000.

The court found that Zhao and Cheng established communication groups for illegal activities, published illegal information, and their conduct was serious enough to constitute the crime of illegal use of information networks. They were sentenced to 1.5 years in prison and fined 10,000 yuan.

【Legal Opinion】The key issue is whether Zhao and Cheng’s actions constitute establishing illegal websites or communication groups. According to relevant judicial interpretations, “establishment” of illegal use of information network crimes includes not only creating websites or groups but also using them primarily for illegal activities after establishment. Their posting of illegally obtained personal data and defamatory content caused online violence.

Judges stated that “box-opening” cases severely infringe on citizens’ lawful rights. Offenders must compensate victims and face administrative or criminal penalties. If the behavior does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution, they may be detained administratively for illegal provision of personal information; if it meets the standard, they could be prosecuted for illegal use of information networks, infringing on personal information, or other crimes such as insult, defamation, or provocation.

【Expert Commentary】Professor Li Huai-sheng from China University of Political Science and Law noted that “box-opening” cases show a clear trend of harm expansion, with societal harm increasing geometrically. The judiciary has not treated such cases as mere pranks but has decisively used criminal sanctions to curb online violence, breaking the illusion of anonymity in cyberspace.

Transformative Robbery Leading to Death of Perpetrator, Lawfully Recognized as Self-Defense

【Case Details】One early morning in January, the continuous barking of dogs woke the Wang family in a residential community in Yufeng District, Liuzhou City, Guangxi. Wang’s wife, Yuan, checked the surveillance app and saw a thief (Liu) in the neighboring room. Wang immediately called the police and went to the door of the neighboring room, holding the door handle tightly. Liu, realizing he was trapped, forcefully pulled the door. During the standoff, Wang, seeing that police had not arrived, asked Yuan to get a knife for self-defense. Liu then forcibly opened the door, tried to snatch the knife, and fled. In the chaos, Wang swung the knife and stabbed Liu in the chest, subduing him. Wang and his wife called 120 for emergency aid. After examination, Liu was confirmed dead.

The police proposed to arrest Wang on suspicion of causing death by negligence. The Yufeng District People’s Procuratorate intervened, guiding the investigation and reviewing evidence on-site, and concluded that Wang’s actions were lawful self-defense. The arrest was thus not approved.

【Legal Opinion】The prosecutor stated that Liu’s behavior constituted a transformative robbery under criminal law, seriously endangering Wang and his family’s safety. Wang’s response to prevent ongoing unlawful harm was justified as lawful self-defense, and he bears no criminal responsibility.

【Expert Commentary】Professor Yu Xun from East China University of Political Science and Law emphasized that the prosecutor correctly identified Liu’s conduct as a transformation of theft into violent resistance, which seriously threatened personal safety. Wang’s actions are lawful self-defense. This case exemplifies the correct application of self-defense provisions and helps dispel the misconception that “who dies or gets injured is right.”

Public Interest Litigation Addresses “Algorithm Dilemmas,” Improving Delivery Personnel’s Withdrawal Rate

【Case Details】In early 2025, Shanghai procuratorates received reports that some courier outlets might have algorithmic imbalances in assessing and paying delivery workers. They conducted random investigations of dozens of outlets through interviews, questionnaires, document retrieval, and trusted timestamp technology. The findings showed that some outlets imposed high penalties for delays or complaints, with “complaint equals deduction” policies; some had unreasonable payment calculation and transfer rules, with layered payments from headquarters to franchisees to couriers, causing delays; and some companies lacked proper transparency and procedures for negotiating and publicizing payment withdrawal ratios.

In May 2025, leveraging public interest litigation functions, the procuratorates organized hearings with courier representatives, unions, regulatory departments, and public supervisors to gather opinions. They recommended that authorities guide companies to optimize algorithms and protect workers’ rights. Authorities provided on-site guidance, encouraging companies to improve algorithms and labor rules. The headquarters of relevant companies optimized their platform algorithms and labor rules, implementing direct payment mechanisms and increasing withdrawal ratios for couriers.

【Legal Opinion】The prosecutors stated that focusing on optimizing algorithms in new employment forms, the judiciary, unions, regulators, and companies work together. By utilizing public interest litigation and the “One Letter, Two Notices” mechanism, they deepened government-procuratorate cooperation, with administrative agencies promoting and encouraging companies to address core algorithm issues, signing comprehensive agreements to ensure transparency and direct payments, thus creating replicable and promotable practices to protect new employment rights.

【Expert Commentary】Professor Yu Xun noted that this case is a landmark judicial practice in protecting the rights of workers in new employment models. It established a collaborative governance model of “procuratorial supervision + union coordination + administrative guidance + corporate self-discipline.” By including algorithms in public interest litigation, the case effectively addresses the “black box” of algorithms; unions’ “One Letter, Two Notices” mechanism promotes source-level algorithm optimization; and transparent rules benefit workers directly.