Filed under pipl
Every brief tagged "pipl".
- § 01 · ENFORCEMENT
MPS Testing Center Names 35 Apps for Personal-Information Violations: A Finance-Heavy Batch, and 15 Takedowns From the Last One
On October 30, 2026, the National Cybersecurity Notification Center published a Ministry of Public Security notice: the MPS Computer Information System Security Product Quality Supervision and Testing Center found 35 mobile apps collecting or using personal information unlawfully. The apps were tested between August 17 and September 11, 2026. This is the first notice in the MPS app-testing series that DCC has covered, and DCC translates it in full with a consolidated table of all 35 apps. Collection and use without the user's consent accounts for 30 of the 46 findings. The other seven categories, each cited against one to seven apps, cover incomplete or inaccurate notice, unlisted third-party sharing, permissions requested without stating their purpose, forced consent to non-necessary data, collection beyond the necessary scope, no effective account cancellation, and no convenient channel to exercise rights. The batch leans heavily toward finance: by their names alone, at least ten are wealth-management, fund, brokerage, or stock-picking apps. Every app was sampled from a mainstream app store, with Apple's the largest source. The notice also reports that 15 of the previous batch's 42 apps failed retest and were taken down by distribution platforms.
- § 02 · ENFORCEMENT
MIIT Public-Naming Bulletin 2026 Batch 5 (Total Batch 58): 26 Apps and SDKs Named, With Auto-Renewal, Misleading Downloads, and Non-Compliant Use in the Findings
On August 25, 2026, MIIT's Information and Communications Administration Bureau issued its fifth public-naming bulletin of 2026 (total Batch 58), citing 26 apps and SDKs for conduct infringing user rights. DCC translates the bulletin and the full 26-entry annex, taken from the PDF on MIIT's website. The findings run to 48 across eleven categories. Seventeen entries drew non-compliant collection of personal information, and eight drew non-compliant use, a category absent from Batch 4. Two categories reach past personal information altogether: a non-compliant auto-renewal service and deceiving or misleading users into downloading an app. Seven of the 26 are education or study apps, two of them gaokao application planners. A city-run media center, a piano maker, and three SDKs, one an ad SDK, complete the profile.
- § 03 · ENFORCEMENT
MIIT Public-Naming Bulletin 2026 Batch 6 (Total Batch 59): 17 Apps and SDKs Named, With Mini-Programs, Forced Targeted Push, and Store-Listing Disclosure in the Findings
On October 15, 2026, MIIT's Information and Communications Administration Bureau issued its sixth public-naming bulletin of 2026 (total Batch 59), citing 17 apps and SDKs for conduct infringing user rights. DCC translates the bulletin and transcribes the 17-entry image table in full. The findings run to 30 across eleven categories. Fourteen entries drew non-compliant collection of personal information. Two categories are new to the MIIT batches DCC has covered: inadequate display of app information on a distribution platform, and swipe-triggered window redirects. Two more, non-compliant use of personal information and forcing users to accept targeted push, first appeared in Batch 5. Eight of the 17 were sampled inside super-apps rather than app stores: three WeChat mattress-brand mini-programs, an Alipay mini-program, a Douyin listing, and three Kuaishou listings. Three Android SDKs, one of them an ad SDK cited for inadequate SDK information disclosure, complete the list.
- § 04 · ENFORCEMENT
CVERC Names 82 Apps for PI Violations, and 28 From Its August Batch Are Now Off the Stores
On 23 September 2026 the National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (国家计算机病毒应急处理中心, CVERC) named 82 mobile apps whose collection and use of personal information failed its testing, carried out between 29 July and 4 September under the 2026 CAC + MIIT + MPS joint special campaign. The notice is published as text, and DCC translates it in full: twelve violation categories, 118 findings, and every app, consolidated into one table. Three things set it apart from the MIIT and CAC notices in DCC's tracker. First, a published retest loop: of the 75 apps CVERC named in August, 28 still failed on retest and have been taken down by the distribution platforms. Second, the taxonomy has moved past the 2019 Identification Method into PIPL's statutory text. Five categories track PIPL Articles 23, 24, 30, 31 and 51 almost word for word: separate consent for sharing with another handler, an opt-out from automated-decision push, notice of why sensitive personal information is needed, dedicated rules for children under 14, and security measures. Third, the perimeter: 29 mini-programs on WeChat, Baidu and Alipay, three WeChat service accounts, two TV apps, a standalone ad SDK, and twelve builds downloaded from third-party download sites. Eight hospital channels are named, among them United Family Healthcare's mini-program, and hospitals account for four of the eleven findings of sharing personal information without separate consent.
- § 05 · PERSONAL-INFORMATION
China Finishes the Other End of PIPL: The Draft Provisions for Large Personal Information Handlers, Read Against Order No. 25
On 7 August 2026 the CAC published the Provisions on Personal Information Protection for Large Personal Information Handlers (Draft for Comment), consolidating its September 2025 supervision-committee draft and its November 2025 large-network-platform draft into one 50-article instrument, with comments due 7 September 2026. DCC has translated the full text and reads it against CAC/MPS Order No. 25, the small-handler regime published sixteen days earlier — because the pair is the story. Three shifts matter most. The subject changes from 'large network platform' to 'large personal information handler,' and the old registered-user and monthly-active-user tests give way to a three-factor test starting at 10 million data subjects, which reaches banks, insurers, carriers, hospitals and automakers that never thought of themselves as platforms. Designation is declared rather than automatic: a qualifying handler must self-declare through its provincial CAC and the national CAC publishes a public list, which puts the burden of self-identification on the company. And the obligations that follow are structural rather than procedural — absolute domestic storage under Article 13, a nationality requirement for data center controllers under Article 14, a protection officer drawn from management with a direct reporting line to the provincial CAC, and a supervision committee that is not a committee of the board. DCC sets out the full comparison table, the designation trap, and what the newly visible middle band means for foreign-invested subsidiaries.
- § 06 · ENFORCEMENT
What the Data Inspectors Actually Find
An empirical read of 392 Chinese data-compliance administrative penalty decisions published between January 2024 and June 3, 2026, resting on the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law. Four findings for overseas counsel. First, the routine outcome is not a fine: 74.5% of decisions ended in a warning and public criticism, 16.6% carried a fine, and 92% were issued by public security organs rather than the Cyberspace Administration. Second, the citation chain is remarkably narrow — DSL Article 27 via Article 45 (173 decisions) and PIPL Article 51 via Article 66 (50 decisions) carry the file, and what inspectors find are the enumerated basics: no training record (58), unencrypted personal information (35), weak passwords (24), MLPS grading not completed (12), no contingency plan (11), log retention under six months (7). Third, what moves a case off the warning default is failure to rectify within the deadline, not scale of exposure: 19.28 million exposed records drew RMB 50,000, while a hospital that missed its rectification deadline drew RMB 80,000 plus licence-tier measures — and where DSL Article 45 fines are imposed, they anchor at the RMB 50,000 statutory floor. Fourth, in all 392 decisions, zero cited PIPL Articles 38–42, the cross-border transfer provisions, and only three cited the impact-assessment duties in Articles 55–56.