Filed under data-economy
Every brief tagged "data-economy".
- § 01 · CROSS-BORDER
The Negative-List Map, Region by Region: Ten Zones, Two Models, and the Year Data Export Went Province-Wide
As of July 2026, ten Chinese regions — nine free-trade zones plus the Hainan Free Trade Port — have published data-export negative lists under Article 6 of the 2024 Cross-border Data Flows Provisions, and this year Beijing and Shanghai took the mechanism province- and city-wide, off the FTZ footprint entirely. DCC's roundup maps the full set: which sectors each zone lists (from Tianjin's 13 commodity categories to Guangdong's smart-manufacturing and personal-credit fields, Chongqing's intelligent-connected-vehicle chain, and Jiangsu's biopharma-only list), the two management models that have crystallized — pre-export filing versus Shanghai and Guangdong's 'transfer-first, report-after' — and how an overseas team should read the map. Compiled from the CAC's national negative-list index and each region's official notice, and paired with DCC's new downloadable negative-list registry.
- § 02 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
China's Data Property Rights Registration Guide Is Final: The Draft-to-Trial Diff
On 1 July 2026, the National Data Administration issued the Data Property Rights Registration Work Guide (Trial), converting its April 2026 consultation draft into China's first national framework for registering the Right to Hold Data, Right to Use Data and Right to Operate Data. The final text keeps the same six-chapter, 42-article structure, but the diff is not cosmetic: security and public-interest gates are stronger; derived data is now defined; the national infrastructure shifts from a service platform to a service system; registrars face tighter qualification, disclosure, annual-evaluation, change-reporting and exit rules; public-data registration is softened from mandatory to conditional/voluntary wording; unclear contractual entitlement receives a cure path; evidence preservation, not certificate issuance, now starts the validity period; and certificate use is sharpened for data-asset balance-sheet entry, financing guarantees and valuation-based equity contribution.
- § 03 · DATA-ECONOMY
Li Yang: Why 'Data Rights-Confirmation' Is a Category Error — Dynamic Data Can't Be a Registration Object, and AUCL Article 13 Is the Better Path
DCC's summary of an opinion piece by Li Yang (李扬), professor at China University of Political Science and Law, arguing that the whole project of 'data rights-confirmation' (数据确权) — and the data-IP registration pilots run under it — rests on a category error. In Chinese IP law, 'confirmation' (确权) is the authoritative validation of an already-existing right, and it presupposes three things data lacks: a determinate object, defined rights content, and clear boundaries. Civil Code Art. 127 only defers the question; 'data IP' is a policy concept, not a legal one; and data is co-produced by many parties, so registration proves who submitted data, not who owns it. Li Yang's sharpest move is the dynamic-object problem: registration regimes (real estate, IP, equity) require a persistently stable object, but data's value lives in continuous updating, so the data at registration is never the data in dispute — and blockchain/hash/timestamp '存证' only fix a historical snapshot, never the living data stream, confusing proof-of-existence with object-identification. He concludes that registration's real functions are evidentiary and publicity/transaction-support — not rights-confirmation — and that data governance should move from rights-confirmation to interest-protection, from static-rights thinking to dynamic-competition thinking, protecting commercial-data interests under Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. DCC's read for overseas counsel, against the data-IP registration regime and the Beijing Internet Court's first AUCL Article 13 ruling.
- § 04 · ANTI-UNFAIR-COMPETITION
How the Beijing Internet Court Found a Platform 'Lawfully Held' Its Data Under the New AUCL Article 13 — and Where It Meets the 'Right to Hold Data'
The Beijing Internet Court's 30 April 2026 judgment — the first published application of the data clause (Article 13) of the 2025-revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, effective 15 October 2025 — turns on one threshold question: did the plaintiff platform 'lawfully hold' (合法持有) the scraped career data? DCC walks through exactly how the court got to 'yes', step by step: the data originated as personal information collected with user consent under the platform's Service Agreement and Privacy Policy (no unlawful processing on record); the operator's build-and-run investment aggregated scattered records into a dataset with standalone economic value; and that dataset is the foundational input for the platform's matching business and competitive advantage. From those three findings the court derives its operative definition — data lawfully collected/stored/used, formed through substantial investment, and capable of generating business benefit or competitive advantage — and holds that the defendant's crawler-and-resale scheme, circumventing login and access controls, was unfair competition (¥200,000 + ¥30,000-plus in costs). The brief then takes up the doctrinal question: does Article 13's 'lawfully held data' correspond to the 'right to hold data' (数据持有权) in the Data 20 Articles' three-rights framework? The answer is a functional yes — the court is enforcing the holding right's purely defensive content, exactly as Hong Yanqing's analysis predicted AUCL Article 13 would — but not a doctrinal one: it builds a competition-tort interest on investment and lawful sourcing, deliberately sidestepping any claim that data is a typed property right. DCC's case brief for overseas counsel, drawn against the earlier AUCL Article 2 general-clause data cases.
- § 05 · PUBLIC-DATA
Guangdong Prices the Public-Data Operator Like a Utility: Inside the Province's Authorized-Operation Price-Management Measures
On 12 May 2026 the Guangdong DRC and the Guangdong Administration of Government Services and Data issued the Guangdong Province Public Data Resource Authorized-Operation Price Management Measures — one of the first provincial implementations of the national NDRC/NDA price-formation notice (发改价格〔2025〕65号). The 20-article rule prices the 'public-data operation service fee' (公共数据运营服务费) with a regulated-utility toolkit: government-guided pricing, a maximum permitted revenue equal to operating cost + permitted profit + tax, and a permitted profit rate capped at the prior-year 10-year treasury yield plus no more than 6 percentage points. DCC reads the full text (carried by 数据行者X) against the Guangdong DRC's official interpretation (carried by 砖济咨询) to draw out what overseas counsel needs: this is cost-of-service, rate-of-return regulation imported into the data-element market, with periodic resets every three years, a ±10% annual adjustment band, mandatory cost separation, and a carve-out keeping public-governance and public-welfare data 'conditionally free.'
- § 06 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
Data 'Parallel Property Rights' — They Can Confer Status, but Can't Secure Control
Part four — and the synthesis — of Hong Yanqing's (洪延青, 网安寻路人) study notes on China's 'separation of three rights' data-property framework takes up 'parallel property rights' (数据平行财产权): how to allocate rights when the *same* data is held, used, and operated by *multiple* parties at once. Building on Xiong Bingwan and Zhuang Hongshan's 'one-data, multiple-rights' (一数数权) idea — data is non-rivalrous and copyable, so the same right over the same data can sit with several parties without excluding each other — Hong argues parallel property rights are best understood as *default rules* for incomplete-contract, collaborative-production settings: internally, parallel use is presumed; externally, operation is classified by data type (by-products each party may operate alone; purpose-built or fused data needs the others' consent); and parallel holders share a *joint defensive* interest against third parties. But the substance, he shows, falls back on derivative data — and here Xiong, Xu Ke (许可), and Shen Weixing (申卫星), despite different scenarios and tests, all tilt the derivative-data right to the *processor*, leaving the data contributor with contract/compensation/tort/PI remedies rather than ownership of the new product. DCC's read for overseas counsel: parallel property rights cut *attribution* uncertainty (who may use, operate, defend) but not *control* uncertainty (future use, detection, tracing, modelled value, third-party chains, ongoing compliance) — status, not control.