Filed under personality-rights
Every brief tagged "personality-rights".
- § 01 · AI-AGENTS
Fault for Services, Strict Liability Only for Machines: Wang Liming on Tort Liability When AI Agents Cause Harm
In Tsinghua University Law Journal (《清华法学》) 2026 No. 5, Wang Liming (王利明) of Renmin University sets out how Chinese tort law should handle harm done by AI agents. His answers: an agent is never a liable party, so liability falls on the people along its value chain; AI that provides a service, such as generative AI, is judged by fault, while strict product liability applies only to agents that enter the physical world as tangible things and threaten life, body, health or tangible property; where fault applies, operators and deployers should prove they took reasonable care; multiple actors are not jointly and severally liable by default, but answer in proportion to their causal contribution, with the party closest to the end user carrying the heaviest risk-control duty; open-source and free providers get lighter treatment; causation should be presumed when the evidence sits with the defendant; and the 'mass micro-torts' agents produce, such as leaks of many people's personal information, call for representative and public-interest litigation rather than individual suits. DCC summarizes the article section by section and maps each proposal against the Supreme People's Court's AI Disputes Opinions (法发〔2026〕10号), the PIPL and the Civil Code. Most of Wang's framework is already in the Opinions; the reversal of the burden of proof for service agents, the presumption of causation, and substitute measures for data-subject rights go further.
- § 02 · SPC
Fa Fa [2026] No. 10: How the Supreme People's Court Explains Its First Adjudication Rules for AI Disputes
On 7 September 2026 the Supreme People's Court released the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见), document number Fa Fa [2026] No. 10 (法发〔2026〕10号) — the first adjudication-rules document on AI from China's highest court. This brief translates the Court's own release note in full: the drafting background (the April 2025 Politburo study session, the 15th Five-Year Plan's call for rules on AI-generated output, the State Council's IP plan), the four drafting considerations (including the Court's statement that China has no dedicated AI law, so the Opinions work through the Civil Code, PIPL, Copyright Law, AUCL, Consumer Protection Law and Civil Procedure Law), and the part-by-part summary of the 24 articles. DCC then maps every article for overseas counsel — the fault-based default under Civil Code Art. 1165(1); the Article 4 rules on AI face-swapping, voice cloning and 'AI resurrection'; the Article 5 doxxing rule; Article 6 on training with lawfully public personal information; Article 7's notice-and-takedown rule for generative-AI providers; Article 8 injunctions; Article 9's physical-carrier limit on 'AI product'; Article 10 on algorithmic price discrimination and celebrity-impersonation fraud; Article 11 on autonomous and assisted driving; the IP articles 12–16 (training-data disclosure by developers, open-source exemption, AI-assisted inventions, technology contracts, data use under copyright, trade secrets and AUCL Art. 13); the procedure articles 17–20 (adverse inference, evidence review of AI output, sanctions for AI-fabricated evidence, the duty to verify and disclose AI-generated filings); and the working-mechanism articles 21–24 — and explains what a 法发 document is and is not.