Law and Practice — Defamation and Reputation Management (China)

Law and Practice: Defamation and Reputation Management

I. Protection of the Right to Privacy

1.1 Legal Basis of the Right to Privacy

Civil Level

In China, the right to privacy is primarily protected by the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (the “Civil Code”). Article 1032 of the Civil Code provides that no organisation or individual may infringe upon the right to privacy of others by means of spying, intrusion, disclosure, publication, or other similar means, and expressly defines the right to privacy as the tranquillity of a natural person’s private life and the private space, private activities, and private information that a natural person does not wish to be known to others.

In addition, the Civil Code incorporates private personal information such as names, identity document numbers, and contact details into the scope of protection of the right to privacy. Pursuant to Article 1034, where there are no special provisions on the protection of personal information, the relevant provisions on the protection of the right to privacy shall apply. For the specific content of personal information protection, please refer to the section “IV. Data Protection” of this article.

It should be noted that, pursuant to Article 1032 of the Civil Code, only natural persons enjoy the right to privacy; legal persons and unincorporated organisations do not enjoy this right. However, the trade secrets of legal persons and unincorporated organisations may be protected through the trade secret protection regime.

In a tort action for infringement of the right to privacy, the rights holder generally bears the burden of proof with respect to the following elements:

• The information or matter at issue is of a private nature;

• The defendant has committed an act infringing upon the right to privacy;

• The defendant is subjectively at fault;

• The rights holder has suffered damage as a result of the infringing act.

Administrative/Criminal Level

At the administrative law level, pursuant to Article 50 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security, peeping, secretly photographing, eavesdropping on, or disseminating the privacy of others constitutes an unlawful act and may be subject to administrative detention or fines in accordance with the law.

At the criminal law level, for serious infringements of the right to privacy, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Criminal Law”) prescribes corresponding criminal offences, specifically including:

• The crime of unlawful search and the crime of unlawful intrusion into a residence (Article 245 of the Criminal Law)—whoever unlawfully searches the body or residence of another person, or unlawfully intrudes into the residence of another person, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention;

• The crime of infringing upon freedom of correspondence (Article 252 of the Criminal Law)—whoever conceals, destroys, or unlawfully opens the letters of another person, thereby infringing upon a citizen’s right to freedom of correspondence, where the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than one year or criminal detention;

• The crime of infringing upon citizens’ personal information (Article 253-1 of the Criminal Law)—whoever, in violation of relevant state regulations, sells or provides citizens’ personal information to others, where the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, and shall also, or shall only, be fined; where the circumstances are particularly serious, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years, and shall also be fined;

• The crime of unlawful use of specialised equipment for eavesdropping or secret photography (Article 284 of the Criminal Law)—whoever unlawfully uses specialised equipment for eavesdropping or secret photography, causing serious consequences, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, criminal detention, or public surveillance.

1.2 Remedies for Infringement of the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is a type of personality right, and the remedies available for personality rights apply equally to cases of infringement of the right to privacy. In China, a rights holder may claim two types of remedies: damages and injunctive relief.

Injunction

Article 179 of the Civil Code sets out the principal forms of civil liability, including cessation of infringement, removal of obstruction, and elimination of danger. Where the right to privacy is infringed, the victim may apply to the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation or escalation of the damage. For example, where the infringing content is published on the internet, the court will typically order the infringing party to delete the relevant posts or articles, or require the platform to take down the infringing content; where the infringer is a natural person who has disclosed another person’s private information, the court will order that person to cease further publication and dissemination of such information.

Article 997 of the Civil Code further provides that where a civil subject has evidence proving that an actor is committing, or is about to commit, an unlawful act that infringes upon his or her personality rights, and that failure to stop such act in a timely manner will cause irreparable damage to his or her lawful rights and interests, the civil subject has the right to apply to the people’s court, in accordance with the law, for measures ordering the actor to cease the relevant conduct. This provision provides a legal basis for pre-litigation or interim conduct preservation (i.e., an injunction), enabling the victim to promptly halt the continuation of the infringing act even before actual damage occurs.

Elimination of Adverse Effects/Apology

Article 179 of the Civil Code provides that elimination of adverse effects, restoration of reputation, and apology are all forms of civil liability. The court may order the defendant to take appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate the adverse effects caused to the victim by the infringing act, for example, by publishing a written letter of apology on the same platform on which the infringing content was published.

Damages

The basic principle of damages is to compensate the victim for actual losses. Since the damage caused by infringement of the right to privacy is mostly non-material mental distress, courts typically order the infringing party to pay compensation for mental distress rather than property losses. However, in certain circumstances, reasonable attorney’s fees, notarisation fees, and similar expenses incurred by the rights holder may be recognised as property losses, for which the rights holder is entitled to claim compensation. The specific amount of compensation for mental distress is determined by the court at its discretion based on factors such as the severity of the infringing circumstances.

1.3 Limitation Period and Defences for the Right to Privacy

Limitation Period

The limitation period for civil disputes arising from infringement of the right to privacy is three years, calculated from the date on which the rights holder knows or should have known that his or her rights have been infringed and of the person liable, unless otherwise provided by law. However, where more than twenty years have elapsed since the date on which the rights were infringed, the people’s court shall not grant protection (Article 188 of the Civil Code). It should be noted that the limitation defence affects only the proprietary remedy of damages; the rights holder may still claim non-proprietary remedies such as cessation of infringement and apology.

In China, the limitation period must be raised as a defence by the parties themselves; the people’s court may not apply it ex officio. Article 193 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the people’s court shall not apply the provisions on limitation period on its own initiative.

The rules on the limitation period for prosecution at the criminal level are more complex and must be determined according to the statutory maximum penalty for the specific offence (Article 87 of the Criminal Law).

Defences

Article 999 of the Civil Code provides that where acts such as news reporting or public-opinion oversight are carried out for the public interest, the name, trade name, likeness, and personal information of a civil subject may be used reasonably; however, where such use is unreasonable and infringes upon the personality rights of a civil subject, civil liability shall be borne. It should be noted that the scope of reasonable use prescribed by this article does not include the right to privacy. In addition, unlike defamation torts, where “true facts” may serve as a defence, the core issue in disputes over infringement of the right to privacy lies in the unauthorised disclosure of private information; accordingly, the defences primarily revolve around the lawfulness of the conduct.

The core defences to infringement of the right to privacy generally include:

• Consent of the rights holder: The victim has consented to the disclosure of the relevant private information, or has previously made such information public on his or her own initiative;

• Information already public: Information that has been lawfully made public is generally not regarded as private information; however, where such public information is used in a manner contrary to public order and good morals, it may still constitute an infringement;

• News reporting and public-opinion oversight: Where the media reports on the relevant information of persons involved in public events or matters of public interest within the necessary scope, it does not constitute an infringement of the right to privacy; however, where the disclosed content consists purely of gossip intended to satisfy the public’s curiosity, it may still constitute an infringement.

1.4 Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Privacy Litigation

Choice Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings

In tort cases, the core distinction between civil litigation and criminal litigation lies in their different purposes. The primary purpose of civil litigation is, through legal remedies, to compensate the rights holder for loss of reputation, restore his or her social standing, and protect other civil rights and interests; whereas criminal litigation focuses on punishing crime and maintaining social order, aiming to impose criminal penalties on actors who damage social order and public morals and infringe upon the reputation of others. The standard of proof in criminal litigation is higher, requiring proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Closed Trials and Anonymous Litigation

In China, civil litigation is, in principle, conducted in open court; however, cases involving personal privacy constitute a statutory exception and shall be heard in closed session.

Basis of Jurisdiction

Litigation for infringement of the right to privacy is generally under the jurisdiction of the people’s court at the place where the infringing act was committed or where the defendant is domiciled. The place where the infringing act was committed includes both the place where the infringing act was carried out and the place where the consequences of the infringement occurred. For online infringements, the location of the computer or other information equipment used to carry out the infringing act may be recognised as the place where the infringing act was carried out, while the domicile of the victim may be recognised as the place where the consequences of the infringement occurred.

1.5 Litigation Costs for Privacy Litigation

Litigation costs mainly include the case acceptance fees that must be prepaid to the people’s court, as well as attorney’s fees, notarisation fees, and similar expenses that may be incurred. In Chinese civil litigation, case acceptance fees are, in principle, borne by the losing party; however, reasonable enforcement expenses such as attorney’s fees are not necessarily borne by the losing party, except in special circumstances such as online infringement.

In judicial practice, reasonable expenses incurred by a rights holder to protect his or her lawful rights and interests—including attorney’s fees, notarisation fees, and investigation and evidence-collection fees that comply with relevant state regulations—may be recognised as property losses of the rights holder, and the rights holder may claim compensation from the infringing party before the court. The court will examine the necessity and reasonableness of such expenses and uphold the claim for compensation to the extent that it is reasonable.

1.6 Other Characteristics of Privacy Litigation

None.

II. Defamation

2.1 Legal Basis of Defamation

Civil Level

The legal basis for defamation lies primarily in the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. Article 1024 of the Civil Code expressly establishes the right of reputation as a personality right of natural persons, providing that no organisation or individual may infringe upon the right of reputation of others by means of insult, defamation, or other similar means. Meanwhile, Article 1165 provides that where an actor, through fault, infringes upon the civil rights and interests of another person and causes damage, the actor shall bear tort liability.

Articles 1025 through 1029 of the Civil Code set out provisions on the protection of the right of reputation in specific circumstances, specifically including:

• Acts such as news reporting and public-opinion oversight carried out for the public interest;

• The publication of literary and artistic works depicting real persons and real events;

• False reporting by media such as newspapers, periodicals, and the internet.

In addition, enterprises may invoke Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China to protect their own business reputation. That article expressly prohibits business operators from fabricating or disseminating false or misleading information to the detriment of the commercial reputation or product reputation of their competitors.

Criminal Level

Article 246 of the Criminal Law prescribes the crime of insult and the crime of defamation, namely, openly insulting another person by violence or other means, or fabricating facts to defame another person, where the circumstances are serious, which may constitute a criminal offence. Such cases are generally private prosecution cases, except where they seriously endanger social order or national interests. Article 221 of the Criminal Law prescribes the crime of impairing commercial reputation or product reputation, namely, fabricating and disseminating false facts to the detriment of the commercial reputation or product reputation of others, causing significant losses to others or involving other serious circumstances, which may constitute a criminal offence.

A rights holder claiming defamation generally bears the burden of proving the following elements:

• The defendant has committed a defamatory act, typically manifested as disseminating false statements of fact to a third party, or engaging in insulting abuse;

• The infringing act is public in nature, that is, it has become known to unspecified third parties;

• Based on the content at issue, a third party could reasonably infer that it is directed at a specific victim;

• The reputation of the rights holder has been damaged, that is, the statements at issue have caused, or are likely to cause, a lowering of the social standing of the rights holder;

• There is a causal link between the infringing act and the resulting damage, and the defendant is subjectively at fault, whether intentional or negligent.

2.2 Remedies for Defamation

Injunction

Injunctive relief is likewise available in defamation cases; for specifics, please refer to the section 1.2 “Remedies for the Protection of the Right to Privacy (Injunction)” of this article.

Elimination of Adverse Effects/Apology

For specifics, please refer to the section 1.2 “Remedies for the Protection of the Right to Privacy (Elimination of Adverse Effects/Apology)” of this article.

In judicial practice, the two remedies of elimination of adverse effects and apology are often claimed simultaneously, since the act of apology itself generally serves to eliminate adverse effects and restore reputation.

Damages

Damages for defamation include compensation for property losses and compensation for mental distress. For example, where an enterprise loses business opportunities as a result of defamation, or where a natural person loses employment opportunities as a result of defamation, such losses constitute property losses; compensation for mental distress is compensation for the humiliation, anxiety, and other mental suffering endured by the victim as a result of the infringing act. Such compensation applies only to natural persons, and the amount generally ranges from RMB 2,000 to RMB 50,000; where the circumstances are serious, the amount may be higher, with the specific amount determined by the court at its discretion based on the circumstances of the infringement.

2.3 Limitation Period and Defences for Defamation

Limitation Period

The limitation period for civil disputes arising from defamation is three years; for specifics, please refer to the section 1.3 “Limitation Period and Defences for the Protection of the Right to Privacy (Limitation Period)” of this article.

Defences

• True facts: The most direct defence is to prove the truth of the statements made; however, where the statements themselves contain insulting language, even if the factual basis is true, it may still constitute an infringement;

• Public interest: Where acts such as news reporting or public-opinion oversight are carried out for the public interest, this may serve as a defence, but it is necessary to prove that: (1) no facts were fabricated or distorted; (2) a reasonable duty of verification was fulfilled with respect to the information; and (3) no insulting language was used (Article 1025 of the Civil Code);

• No specific reference: Where the statements do not describe or refer to a specific natural person, no liability for defamation arises (Article 1027 of the Civil Code). However, in practice, the forms of online defamation continue to evolve, and an infringing party may seek to avoid direct reference by means of “innuendo and indirect suggestion,” inducing the public to form a negative evaluation of a specific subject; such conduct may still be found to constitute an infringement.

2.4 Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Defamation Litigation

Choice Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Please refer to the section 1.4 “Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Privacy Litigation (Choice Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings)” of this article.

Closed Trials and Anonymous Litigation

Unlike cases involving infringement of the right to privacy, defamation cases generally do not qualify for closed trials. However, where a case also involves personal privacy, a closed trial may be conducted in accordance with the law.

Basis of Jurisdiction

Please refer to the section 1.4 “Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Privacy Litigation (Basis of Jurisdiction)” of this article.

2.5 Litigation Costs for Defamation Litigation

Please refer to the section 1.5 “Litigation Costs for Privacy Litigation” of this article.

2.6 Other Characteristics of Defamation Litigation

None.

III. Harassment

3.1 Legal Basis of Harassment

Civil Level

Unlike some common law jurisdictions, Chinese law does not contain a unified, standalone legislative provision on “harassment”; the relevant prohibitive provisions are scattered across various legal norms. For example, Article 1011 of the Civil Code regulates sexual harassment, and Article 1033 expressly lists “intruding upon the tranquility of another person’s private life by means of telephone, text messages, instant messaging tools, email, flyers, or other similar means” as an act infringing upon the right to privacy.

Administrative Level

The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security prescribes administrative penalties for certain forms of harassment, for example, repeatedly sending obscene, insulting, or intimidating messages that interfere with the normal life of others, or interfering with the normal life of others by means of harassment, pestering, stalking, or other similar means. With respect to cyberbullying and online harassment, the Cyberspace Administration of China has issued the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information, which contains numerous provisions on the prevention and handling of online violence, and online harassment also falls within its regulatory scope.

Criminal Level

The crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble prescribed by Article 293 of the Criminal Law may, in judicial practice, serve as a catch-all provision for regulating serious harassment; where harassment is committed on multiple occasions and causes serious disorder in public places, the offender may be convicted and punished under this offence.

3.2 Remedies for Harassment

Current Chinese law does not prescribe specific civil remedies for harassment; a rights holder may claim remedies under the general tort liability provisions. For specifics, please refer to the section 1.2 “Remedies for the Protection of the Right to Privacy” of this article. At the administrative level, public security authorities may impose administrative penalties on harassers, including warnings, fines, and administrative detention.

For the relevant provisions on damages, please refer to the section 2.2 “Remedies for Defamation (Damages)” of this article.

3.3 Limitation Period and Defences for Harassment

The limitation period for civil disputes arising from harassment is three years, consistent with the provisions in the section 1.3 “Limitation Period and Defences for the Protection of the Right to Privacy (Limitation Period)” of this article. However, harassment is generally continuous and repetitive in nature; where the harassment is ongoing, the rights holder may argue that the limitation period should be calculated from the date on which the harassment ceases (the doctrine of continuing tort).

3.4 Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Harassment Litigation

The provisions in the section 1.4 “Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Privacy Litigation” of this article apply equally to litigation relating to harassment. Whether a case qualifies for a closed trial depends on whether it involves personal privacy.

3.5 Litigation Costs for Harassment Litigation

Please refer to the section 1.5 “Litigation Costs for Privacy Litigation” of this article.

IV. Data Protection

4.1 Legal Basis of Data Protection

The legal framework for the protection of data rights in China is centred on several specialised laws, supplemented by administrative regulations that provide detailed implementing rules. The core legal basis includes:

• The Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Personal Information Protection Law”): This law focuses on protecting the personal information rights and interests of natural persons, establishes personal information processing rules centred on “informed consent,” and sets out the various rights of personal information subjects in processing activities;

• The Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China: This law emphasises safeguarding data security and promoting the development and utilisation of data, establishes a classified and graded data protection system, and provides enhanced protection for important data and core data;

• The Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China: This is the foundational law for cybersecurity management in cyberspace and sets out basic provisions on network data security;

• The Regulations on Network Data Security Management: Effective as of January 1, 2025, this core administrative regulation systematically consolidates and refines the requirements of the above laws, serving as the principal operational basis for regulating network data processing activities.

In addition, for natural persons, at the level of fundamental civil rights, the Civil Code also expressly provides that the law protects the right to privacy and personal information; for specifics, please refer to the section 1.1 “Legal Basis of the Right to Privacy” of this article.

4.2 Remedies for Data Protection

Remedies for data infringement fall primarily into three categories:

• Civil remedies: The victim may bring an action before the court requiring the infringing party to bear civil liabilities such as cessation of infringement, elimination of adverse effects, apology, and compensation for losses. Compensation for losses includes compensation for actual property losses; where the circumstances are serious, compensation for mental distress may also be claimed;

• Administrative penalties: Regulatory authorities may, in accordance with the law, impose administrative penalties on unlawful actors, including orders to rectify, warnings, confiscation of unlawful gains, fines, orders to suspend relevant business, and revocation of relevant licences. The amounts of fines are relatively high; for example, an entity that unlawfully processes personal information may be fined up to RMB 50 million or 5% of its turnover for the preceding year;

• Criminal penalties: Where the unlawful conduct constitutes a crime (such as the crime of infringing upon citizens’ personal information), criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law, and penalties such as fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, and fines may be imposed.

4.3 Limitation Period and Defences for Data Protection

Limitation Period

The limitation period for civil disputes relating to data protection is consistent with the provisions in the section 1.3 “Limitation Period and Defences for the Protection of the Right to Privacy (Limitation Period)” of this article.

Defences

The core defences that a data processor (equivalent to a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation, the “GDPR”) may invoke include:

• Lawful basis for processing: (1) explicit and specific consent has been obtained from the personal information subject; (2) processing is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract to which the personal information subject is a party; (3) processing is necessary for the performance of statutory duties or statutory obligations.

• Nature of the data: The data processed consists of anonymised information (which cannot identify a specific natural person and cannot be restored), or constitutes reasonable use of lawfully made public information.

• No substantial damage: The data processing has not caused substantial damage to the lawful rights and interests of the original rights holder.

• Fulfilment of security obligations: Where, following a data security incident, timely remedial measures have been taken and the duty of notification has been fulfilled, this may serve as a factor in mitigating liability.

An entrusted party (equivalent to a data processor under the GDPR) may argue that it processed data in accordance with the instructions of the data processor and within the agreed methods and purposes of processing.

4.4 Jurisdiction and Form of Trial for Data Protection Litigation

Under the Chinese legal framework, there is a fundamental distinction between civil litigation and criminal litigation arising from data infringement.

Civil litigation aims to provide remedies for infringed civil rights and interests, with the core legal basis being the Civil Code, the Personal Information Protection Law, and the like. It regulates conduct such as the unlawful processing of personal information and infringement of the right to privacy, and is brought by the aggrieved natural person or organisation as plaintiff, with the purpose of obtaining civil remedies such as cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. Civil litigation generally applies the principle of “whoever asserts bears the burden of proof,” but cases involving infringement of personal information apply the principle of presumption of fault, under which the defendant (the data processor) bears the burden of proving that it is not at fault.

Criminal litigation aims to punish criminal conduct and has a broader regulatory scope, encompassing not only the crime of infringing upon citizens’ personal information but also offences relating to endangering data security and disrupting the order of computer systems (such as the crime of unlawfully obtaining data from a computer information system). The objects of crime are not limited to personal information but also include enterprise data and the like. Such cases are generally filed and investigated by public security authorities, with public prosecution brought by the people’s procuratorate.

Procedurally, the standard of proof in civil litigation is “a high degree of probability,” whereas criminal litigation must meet the stricter standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Under the law, in both civil and criminal litigation, cases involving personal privacy may be heard in closed session in accordance with the law; however, China has not yet widely adopted a fully anonymous trial system. To initiate civil litigation, the conditions for bringing an action prescribed by the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China must be satisfied, including that the plaintiff has a direct interest in the case, that there is a definite defendant, and that there are specific claims, facts, and reasons. The court of jurisdiction is generally the people’s court at the place where the defendant is domiciled or where the infringing act was committed; the place where the infringing act was committed includes both the place where the infringing act was carried out and the place where the consequences of the infringement occurred.

4.5 Litigation Costs for Data Protection Litigation

Please refer to the section 1.5 “Litigation Costs for Privacy Litigation” of this article.

V. Regulatory and Media Environment

5.1 Core News Media

China’s national-level broadcasting, newspaper, and periodical media attach great importance to privacy protection, information accuracy, and journalistic professional ethics. National-level broadcasting media have always been regarded as authoritative sources of information and bear significant social responsibility.

The most influential news media in China include Xinhua News Agency, the People’s Daily, China Media Group, the Guangming Daily, and China Daily, among others.

5.2 Regulatory Framework

In China, broadcasting, newspapers and periodicals, other publishing institutions, and online social media are subject to different regulatory rules depending on the nature of their business, principally including:

• The Regulations on the Administration of Radio and Television (latest revision of December 6, 2024);

• The Regulations on the Administration of Publishing (latest revision of December 6, 2024);

• The Provisions on the Administration of Internet News Information Services (issued on May 2, 2017);

• The Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services (latest revision of December 6, 2024);

• The Interim Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services (issued on July 10, 2023).

Effectiveness of Regulatory Enforcement

Regulatory authorities focus primarily on the truthfulness of information content and the impact of its dissemination, so as to reduce defamatory information in official media. With the development of the internet and the implementation of the Personal Information Protection Law, the Cyberspace Administration of China has become the most core regulatory authority in the field of online information. This authority has issued a number of regulations relating to the protection of privacy and reputation, and has in particular established specific rules for the protection of AI-generated content.

Media Protection

China currently has no law specifically protecting the media; however, when engaging in news reporting, the media may invoke relevant rules as a defence. For example, Article 1025 of the Civil Code provides that where acts such as news reporting or public-opinion oversight carried out for the public interest have a certain impact on the right of reputation of others, liability may be mitigated or exempted where the following circumstances are met:

• The act was carried out for the public interest, and no facts were fabricated or distorted;

• A reasonable duty of verification was fulfilled with respect to seriously inaccurate content provided by others;

• No insulting language was used to disparage the reputation of others. This provision may provide legal protection for the news reporting activities of the media.

5.3 Complaint Channels

Article 1028 of the Civil Code provides that where a civil subject has evidence proving that the content of a report by media such as newspapers, periodicals, or the internet is inaccurate and infringes upon his or her right of reputation, the civil subject has the right to request the media to take necessary measures such as correction or deletion in a timely manner. Where the media fails to take timely measures, it shall bear corresponding civil liability.

In the field of online information, the Cyberspace Administration of China has established the 12377 complaint and reporting platform. Any subject that believes that online information involves disclosure of privacy, defamation, insult, or other similar circumstances may file a complaint or report through this platform. The platform will forward the complaint or report to the local cyberspace administration, or directly to the relevant website for handling. In most cases, the relevant infringing information will be taken down and deleted. Where the circumstances of the infringement are serious, the Cyberspace Administration of China will order the relevant website to suspend or deactivate the social media accounts involved, and impose penalties such as warnings and fines on the persons responsible.

5.4 User-Generated Content

Articles 1195 through 1197 of the Civil Code establish China’s “safe harbour” rules, which are highly similar to the safe harbour provisions in the United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Union’s E-Commerce Directive. These rules originally applied primarily to copyright disputes arising from user-generated content hosted on websites, but now apply to all civil rights infringement disputes.

Under the above provisions, where user-generated content hosted on a website gives rise to an infringement dispute, the website operator shall bear tort liability in the following circumstances: • after receiving notice from the rights holder, it fails to take necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, or disconnection of links in a timely manner (the notice-and-takedown mechanism); • it knows or should have known that the user-generated content infringes upon the rights of others, yet fails to take necessary measures.

In other words, where a website operator, after receiving notice from the rights holder, or after knowing or having reason to know of the infringing facts, takes necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall not be liable for the infringement arising from the user-generated content.

5.5 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Current Chinese law does not yet contain any concept of “strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)”; accordingly, no legal regulatory mechanism has been established to address such conduct.

5.6 Restrictions on Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

China has no specific law prohibiting the enforcement of judgments from other jurisdictions in media-related cases. The enforcement of such foreign court judgments in China must follow China’s general rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.