[Editor to fill: 200-word domain overview.]
§ DOMAIN · APP COMPLIANCE
App Compliance.
App 合规
Mobile app personal-information collection rules, the necessary-information catalogue, SDK compliance, and app store removal.
The legal corpus.
9 laws.
- REGULATION Regulations on the Protection of Minors in Cyberspace 未成年人网络保护条例
- Internet Diagnosis & Treatment Measures Notice Issuing the Measures for the Administration of Internet Diagnosis and Treatment (Trial) and Two Related Documents 关于印发《互联网诊疗管理办法（试行）》等3个文件的通知
- App PI Identification Method Method for Identifying the Unlawful Collection and Use of Personal Information by Apps App违法违规收集使用个人信息行为认定方法
- Necessary PI Scope Provisions Provisions on the Scope of Necessary Personal Information for Common Types of Mobile Internet Applications 常见类型移动互联网应用程序必要个人信息范围规定
- Platform Rules Measures Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Trading Platform Rules 网络交易平台规则监督管理办法
- Telecom & Internet User PI Provisions Provisions on Protecting the Personal Information of Telecommunications and Internet Users 电信和互联网用户个人信息保护规定
- Mobile App Information Services Provisions Provisions on the Administration of Mobile Internet Application Information Services (2022 Revision) 移动互联网应用程序信息服务管理规定（2022 修订）
- GB/T 35273 (2026 draft) Data Security Technology — Personal Information Security Specification (2026 Draft for Comment) 数据安全技术 个人信息安全规范（征求意见稿）
- App PI Collection and Use Provisions (Draft) Provisions on the Collection and Use of Personal Information by Internet Applications (Draft for Public Consultation) 互联网应用程序个人信息收集使用规定（征求意见稿）
In this domain.
8 briefs.
- § 01 · ENFORCEMENT
MIIT Public-Naming Bulletin 2026 Batch 4 (Total Batch 57): 32 Apps and SDKs Cited for PI Violations, Excessive Permission Demands, and SDK Disclosure Failures
On July 2, 2026, MIIT's Information & Communications Administration Bureau issued its fourth public-naming bulletin of 2026 (total Batch 57), citing 32 apps and SDKs for infringing user rights — unlawful and beyond-scope collection of personal information, forced/frequent/excessive permission demands, frequent self-starting and chained starting, uncloseable and redirect-abusing information windows, and inadequate SDK information disclosure. The batch runs under the same 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS special campaign as the earlier CAC notification and Shanghai takedown covered in DCC's enforcement tracker, on the same rectify-or-face-disposition pathway. DCC transcribes the full 32-entry list from the bulletin's attached image table. The profile: a mobility-and-transport long tail (ride-hailing driver apps, EV charging, bus-information tools) alongside recognizable names — Neta Auto's app, PetroChina Kunlun's charging app, NetDragon's fortune-telling app, iFlyPlus — plus two WeChat mini-programs, multiple Apple App Store listings, one developer named twice, and three SDKs, one of which (闪登 SDK) drew four separate findings including the headline SDK-disclosure failure.
- § 02 · ENFORCEMENT
From Naming to Takedown: Shanghai Pulls 46 Apps That Missed the Rectification Window
On June 24, 2026 the Shanghai Communications Administration (上海市通信管理局, the MIIT's directly-administered local communications authority) issued a notification ordering the takedown of 46 apps and SDKs that, after public naming and a rectification window, still had not fixed user-rights and personal-information violations. DCC reads it as the next rung on the enforcement ladder above the CAC's 30-app naming notification: same 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS special campaign, but the local communications-administration tier converting an unrectified naming into an operative sanction — removal from distribution, with further measures flagged (suspension of access, administrative penalty, inclusion in the telecom-business bad-record list). The legal basis is PIPL, the Cybersecurity Law, the Telecom Regulations, and the Telecom and Internet User PI Protection Provisions. The 46-app list — transcribed here from the notice's attached image — is almost entirely Shanghai-registered long-tail O2O lifestyle apps (moving, housekeeping and cleaning, pet services, local travel agencies, community group-buy food, fitness and restaurants), and several operators appear with multiple apps taken down at once. DCC's read for overseas counsel: the provincial communications administrations are where a missed rectification window becomes a removed app, and the takedown tier sweeps the small-operator long tail, not just big nationals.
- § 03 · GBT-35273
From Consent to Governance: What the 2026 Draft Revision of GB/T 35273 Changes Against the 2020 Standard
On June 17, 2026 the National Cybersecurity Standardization Technical Committee (TC260), with CESI as drafting lead, released for public comment a systematic revision of GB/T 35273 — China's most-cited personal-information standard, the de-facto 'small PIPL.' The draft retitles the standard from 'Information Security Technology' to 'Data Security Technology' and expands its normative references from one standard to eight. DCC reads the revision as a role change, not a clause count: the standard moves from a consent-and-notice manual into a governance-capability framework. The substantive increments against GB/T 35273-2020: a new Chapter 5 importing PIPL Article 13's seven lawful bases as a standalone chapter with hard boundaries on each (contract-necessity, HR, public-disclosure) plus an evidence-chain duty; a sensitive-PI redefinition aligned to PIPL Article 28 with a new aggregation rule (multiple items that together meet the threshold are treated as sensitive as a whole); a formal 'separate consent' definition (3.7) with a negative list; a new eighth basic principle, 'quality assurance' (Chapter 4(f)); dedicated AI clauses on the collection side (6.7), in minimum-necessity (6.1 d–f), in aggregation/training (8.4), and a new generative-AI use clause (8.5.4) with output review and a 15-working-day deletion SLA; a unified-account-system clause (8.6) aimed at one-account-many-products groups; a terminal/IoT collection clause (6.8); a wholly new Chapter 11 on overseas-jurisdiction determination and conflict handling; and a systematized internal-control chapter (13) covering the person in charge of personal information protection, working body, processing-activity records, impact assessment, and a GB/T 46903-anchored compliance audit. Subject-rights response time tightens from 30 days to 15 working days. Clause numbers are from the comment draft and are not final; formal release is expected after 2027.
- § 04 · ENFORCEMENT
CAC Names 30 Apps and Mini-Programs for PI Violations — Nearly Half for Ineffective Account Cancellation
On June 11, 2026 the Office of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission published a notification naming 30 apps and mini-programs for personal-information collection and use violations, found in testing organized under the 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS joint special campaign. The violations fall into four categories — undisclosed PI collection rules (7 apps), frequent demands for non-essential permissions (4), incomplete SDK disclosure (5), and, the dominant category at 14 of 30, failure to provide an effective account-cancellation function. DCC reads the notification as the CAC tier of the same campaign whose MIIT testing tier we covered in the Batch 56 brief: a broader perimeter that expressly includes mini-programs, a 15-working-day rectify-and-report deadline, and a clear signal that exit rights — account cancellation and deletion — are a 2026 testing priority.
- § 05 · PERSONAL-INFORMATION
Ai Lin — Why Platform Gig Workers Need PI-Protection Tilt and How to Build It
Ai Lin (Jilin University Law School) takes on the under-attended question of personal-information protection for platform gig workers — the food-delivery couriers, ride-hail drivers, freight drivers, and 'internet marketers' who occupy China's new-employment-form category. The structural problem: PIPL's individual-consent baseline doesn't work in employment relations where the worker has no meaningful bargaining power against the platform's algorithmic management. Ai imports the alienated-labor framework from Marx and the 'scenario fairness' principle from contextual integrity to argue for a tilt-protection regime. Three operational responses: enhanced transparency + tiered PI safeguards; treating algorithmic rules as workplace regulations subject to collective bargaining; full-process regulatory accountability. Highly relevant for multinationals operating platform-gig models in China or contracting with Chinese platform workforces.
- § 06 · ENFORCEMENT
Seven Lessons for Data Compliance Teams from the SAMR 'Ghost Takeout' Series — 3.5 Billion Yuan, 9-Month Suspensions, and the Per-Merchant Aggregation Doctrine
In April 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) imposed administrative penalties on seven major e-commerce platforms in the 'ghost takeout' series — 3.5 billion yuan in aggregate corporate fines, nearly 20 million yuan in individual fines on legal representatives and food-safety officers, and 3-to-9-month business suspensions. While the cases were ostensibly food-safety enforcement, their analytical structure — pierce-the-paper-compliance, per-merchant aggregation of penalties, identification of licensed-entity liability holders, dual penalties on individual compliance officers — translates directly to data-compliance enforcement. Adapted from a substantive practitioner analysis by 黄春林 (Huang Chunlin), this DCC brief works through seven operational lessons that DSO / PIPO / DPO and compliance counsel should apply *before* the analogous enforcement wave reaches data compliance.
- § 07 · ENFORCEMENT
MIIT Public-Naming Bulletin 2026 Batch 3 (Total Batch 56): 31 Apps and SDKs Cited for PI Violations and Window-Redirect Abuse
MIIT's Information & Communications Administration Bureau published its 2026 Batch 3 public-naming bulletin (total Batch 56) on May 21, 2026, citing 31 apps and SDKs for violations of personal-information collection rules and window-redirect abuse. DCC frames this as the first entry in our enforcement tracker — explaining the joint CAC + MIIT + MPS 2026 Special Campaign that authorizes the batches, the four-statute legal architecture invoked, the rectification-then-enforcement pathway each named entity faces, the cadence of the bulletin series (roughly monthly, 56 batches since inception), and the operational picture this gives overseas counsel of which PI-protection violations actually attract enforcement in the Chinese mobile-app channel.
- § 08 · PERSONAL-INFORMATION
Is There Such a Thing as 'Game Data Compliance' in China? — Li Wenlong's Field Notes
Li Wenlong (科技利维坦) reports field observations on personal-data collection inside Chinese games, framed around three questions: is there an industry-specific 'game data compliance' mode; where is enforcement actually concentrated; and does the Chinese picture differ from abroad. His read: domestic game-data compliance is still at a 'wild-west stage' — the violations being caught are the blunt, clearly-unlawful kind (a game demanding photo-album permission), and the enforcement frontier is no different from any other app ecosystem. A principle-level framework was in place before 2023, but the yardstick stays crude, with no breakthrough on concrete evaluation standards — which caps how deep either enforcement or compliance can go. Overseas (GDPR and consumer law), games were under-scrutinised until the last year or two. The forward warning: games will be the main carrier of VR and will embed many models, so the compliance picture is about to get far more complex. For overseas counsel advising game studios on the China market: a reality check on what is — and isn't — being enforced.