Trends and Developments — Defamation and Reputation Management (China)

Trends and Developments: Defamation and Reputation Management

I. Legal Provisions and Practice of Reputation Management in China

In the contemporary business and social landscape of China, reputation remains a precious intangible asset. However, with the rapid development of the digital economy and the widespread adoption of social media, online tortious conduct has increasingly exhibited characteristics of anonymity, rapid dissemination, and collective participation. Traditional civil tort remedies have become increasingly inadequate in addressing these new challenges. For general counsel and senior executives of enterprises operating in China, the current challenge lies not only in managing public relations narratives in the marketplace, but also in accurately understanding and effectively applying an increasingly rigorous legal framework when handling online defamation disputes. In recent years, Chinese authorities and courts have placed growing emphasis on the protection of reputation in cyberspace, taking decisive action against rampant online defamation, “false information,” and organised smear campaigns to safeguard market stability.

This transformation originates from the highest levels of policy design. In late 2025, President Xi Jinping articulated the goal of “fostering a clean and upright cyberspace,” explicitly calling for resolute rectification of harmful online content and the elimination of the profit-driven chains behind it. High-level policy direction, coupled with the enactment of new regulations and stringent enforcement actions, is fundamentally reshaping the manner in which individuals and enterprises within China protect their reputations through legal channels.

Whether for multinational corporations or domestic enterprises, understanding this evolving legal system is of paramount importance. This article analyses enforcement trends in the field of reputation management in China, with a focus on key developments, including new provisions under the Civil Code, the “Qinglang” (Clean and Bright) series of special campaigns targeting online rumours, strengthened measures on platform liability, and best-practice response strategies that corporate legal departments must master.

II. The Legal Cornerstone: An Ever-Improving Civil Law Framework

The foundation of modern reputation management in China is the Civil Code, which formally came into effect in 2021. The Code significantly enhanced the protection of the right of reputation for both natural persons and legal persons, establishing it as a core personality right.

Scope of Protection

Article 1024 of the Civil Code expressly provides: “Civil subjects enjoy the right of reputation. No organisation or individual may infringe upon the right of reputation of others by means of insult, defamation, or otherwise.” For general counsel, the critical point is that this rule applies equally to natural persons and legal persons. This means that a company’s business reputation, credit standing, and market position are all subject to robust legal protection, with dimensions of protection that are distinct from, yet parallel to, the personal reputation of corporate executives.

The Civil Code adopts a comprehensive protective approach, providing coordinated protection of the right to honour, the right to privacy, and personal information rights through related provisions. For example, Article 110 expressly provides that natural persons enjoy personality rights including the right of reputation and the right to honour, while Article 111 stipulates that the personal information of natural persons is protected by law. Together, these provisions construct a comprehensive protective barrier against reputation-harming conduct such as defamation, disparagement, and unauthorised disclosure of information.

Determination of Liability

Under the Civil Code, a party whose reputation has been infringed has the right to file a civil action for infringement of the right of reputation. The plaintiff must prove the following four constituent elements:

• Tortious Conduct: The defendant engaged in defamatory, insulting, or similar conduct;

• Damage: The plaintiff suffered quantifiable or demonstrable harm, such as a diminished social evaluation;

• Causation: A direct causal link exists between the tortious conduct and the resulting damage;

• Subjective Fault: The defendant acted intentionally or negligently.

It should be noted that Chinese law does not draw a formal distinction between libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation). Any act of fabricating facts, making disparaging statements, and thereby damaging another’s reputation may constitute a tort. The truthfulness of the statement is a statutory defence; if the defendant can prove that the statement is true and relates to a matter of public interest, they may be exempt from liability. However, this defence has its limits—pure fabrication of facts or insulting remarks are not protected by law.

Remedies and Interim Injunctive Relief

Chinese courts have the authority to provide aggrieved parties with a diverse range of legal remedies. Articles 179 and 995 of the Civil Code enumerate various forms of relief, including cessation of infringement, removal of nuisance, elimination of adverse effects, restoration of reputation, public apology, and compensation for losses.

Unlike some jurisdictions that impose caps on damages, Chinese law sets no statutory limit on the amount of compensation for reputational harm. The amount of damages is determined comprehensively based on the plaintiff’s actual losses and the harm caused by the tort. For natural persons, the scope of compensation may include damages for emotional distress. In practice, compared with punitive damages in Western jurisdictions, compensation calculated based on actual losses or harm is typically relatively modest. However, the reputational restoration effect of a favourable judgment itself, together with the court-ordered remedy of a public apology by the infringing party, often plays a crucial role in restoring the reputation of an enterprise or executive.

For general counsel, one of the most powerful legal tools is injunctive relief—namely, interim measures for conduct preservation during litigation. In urgent cases, Chinese courts may, prior to rendering a final judgment, order the immediate removal or blocking of allegedly defamatory content to prevent further expansion of harm. In 2021, in a landmark case, Xiaomi successfully obtained a court order for interim injunctive relief, requiring the relevant parties to immediately take down online articles and videos containing false allegations. This case demonstrates that Chinese courts are increasingly inclined to act swiftly in reputation crises to avoid irreparable harm.

Commercial Defamation

In commercial contexts, defamatory conduct may simultaneously trigger the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This law expressly prohibits business operators from fabricating or disseminating false facts to damage the business reputation or product reputation of competitors. Accordingly, enterprises that have been disparaged by market competitors or hired “malicious PR” firms have a strategic choice: they may file a reputation infringement action under the Civil Code, or assert a claim of commercial defamation under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

III. The Sword of Law: Criminal and Administrative Enforcement

Although the majority of reputation infringement disputes are resolved through civil proceedings, Chinese law also prescribes corresponding criminal and administrative penalties for defamation of a serious nature, providing a powerful deterrent against egregious infringing conduct.

Criminal Liability

Article 246 of the Criminal Law criminalises defamation. Under this provision, whoever fabricates and disseminates false facts to damage another person’s reputation, where the circumstances are serious, commits the crime of defamation. Judicial practice has established specific quantitative thresholds for “serious circumstances”: for example, where defamatory information posted online has been clicked or viewed more than 5,000 times, or reposted more than 500 times; or where the defamation causes the victim to suffer a mental breakdown or other serious consequences, criminal liability may be pursued. Upon conviction, the offender faces a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment or criminal detention.

Previously, the crimes of insult and defamation under Article 246 of the Criminal Law were, in principle, private prosecution cases, meaning that only the victim could file a complaint directly with the court. Only when the conduct “seriously endangered social order or the interests of the state” would the case be converted into a public prosecution brought by the procuratorial authorities. For a long time, due to the vague standard for determining what constitutes “serious endangerment of social order,” the vast majority of victims could only seek relief through private prosecution and, lacking effective investigative powers, often found themselves in the difficult position of being unable to meet the burden of proof.

In September 2023, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the Guiding Opinions on Punishing Online Violence Violations and Crimes in Accordance with Law, which clarified five circumstances under which insulting and defamatory conduct may be subject to public prosecution, substantially lowering the threshold for authorities to proactively intervene in defamation disputes. This policy shift signifies that online defamation is no longer viewed merely as a private dispute between individuals or enterprises; when it has a substantial impact on public social order, it may escalate into a matter of social governance, with state authorities stepping in to pursue accountability.

Cracking Down on “Malicious PR” and Online Violence

Beyond pure acts of defamation, the law also regulates online violence that accompanies organised smear campaigns. Individuals who repeatedly post vicious insults or threatening remarks may be found to have committed the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble under Article 293 of the Criminal Law—a charge frequently applied in judicial practice to serious cases of online harassment. Additionally, where an offender threatens to release unfavourable information to extort public or private property, the conduct may constitute the crime of extortion.

These legal provisions have been widely applied in crackdowns on “malicious PR” operations—organised “internet troll army” groups hired by others to profit from spreading false information. Chinese public security authorities have not only actively prosecuted the direct creators and disseminators of rumours, but have also investigated and pursued legal liability against the organisers and financiers behind the false information, treating their conduct as a direct threat to public order.

Administrative Penalties for Rapid Intervention

For defamatory conduct that does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution (which is more common in practice), administrative law provides an expedited avenue of relief. The Public Security Administration Punishments Law prohibits publicly insulting others or fabricating facts to defame others. Public security authorities have the power to summon the offender and may, in accordance with law, issue a warning and impose administrative detention of five to ten days or a fine.

This administrative remedy is highly effective in containing smear campaigns and defamation at an early stage. If an enterprise is subjected to a barrage of vulgar abuse or baseless allegations on social media, promptly reporting the matter to the local public security authority may result in an immediate warning or administrative detention of the offender. This convenient, low-threshold remedy serves as a powerful deterrent when harm has already occurred but has not yet reached the level of a criminal offence.

IV. From Safe Harbour to Gatekeeper: Strengthened Platform Liability in the Regulation of Online Violence

Imposing increasingly stringent liability obligations on internet platforms is a defining feature of China’s current reputation management legal framework. Although Articles 1195 through 1197 of the Civil Code establish the “safe harbour” principle, Chinese law simultaneously requires platforms to take more proactive measures upon receiving notice of infringement or becoming aware of infringing facts.

The “Notice-and-Takedown” Regime

Article 1195 of the Civil Code establishes a clear “notice-and-takedown” framework. If a user posts allegedly defamatory content, the victim has the right to notify the network service provider to take necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, or disconnection of links. The notice must include preliminary evidence of infringement and the true identity information of the rights holder.

Upon receiving the notice, the network service provider must promptly take necessary measures and forward the notice to the user who posted the relevant content. If the platform fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall bear joint and several liability with the infringing user for the expanded portion of the damage. Furthermore, Article 1197 of the Civil Code provides that where a network service provider “knows or should have known” that a user is using its network services to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of others, yet fails to take necessary measures, it shall bear joint and several liability with the infringing user. This provision effectively compels platforms to actively respond to and address infringement complaints.

New Regulations on Online Violence

In 2023, regulators promulgated the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information (formally effective August 1, 2024), further strengthening platform liability. These Provisions adopt a broad definition of “online violence information,” encompassing not only traditional insult, defamation, and privacy invasion, but also severe mockery, discriminatory remarks, and other content that may adversely affect the psychological well-being of others.

The Provisions explicitly impose “primary responsibility” on platforms for information content management, requiring them to establish early warning mechanisms for online violence information and to take appropriate measures in accordance with law upon discovering such information. Platforms must promptly delete or block illegal and harmful information and impose penalties on violating users through warnings, feature restrictions, or account bans; in serious cases, violating users must be placed on a blacklist and prohibited from re-registering.

For general counsel, these Provisions provide a new “regulatory lever.” If an enterprise or executive is subjected to online violence, they may invoke these Provisions to require the platform to fulfil its statutory obligations and immediately take measures such as content removal and user penalties, rather than relying solely on case-by-case negotiations through customer service channels. If a platform fails to act, it will face not only civil liability but also administrative penalties. This has significantly improved the responsiveness of major social media platforms such as Weibo, WeChat, and Douyin to takedown requests.

V. The Enforcement Landscape: The “Qinglang” Series of Special Campaigns

The implementation of the legal framework relies on a series of robust enforcement campaigns aimed at “purifying” cyberspace.

The Cyberspace Administration of China’s ongoing “Qinglang” (Clean and Bright) special campaigns have designated online rumours, false information, and smear content as key targets for rectification. The latest data underscores the intensity of these efforts: in late 2022, during a special campaign targeting online rumours, major platforms shut down more than 5,400 accounts of users who violated regulations by spreading false information. Regulators not only banned accounts but also traced and removed the original posts, adhering to a zero-tolerance principle of “ban the account for creating or spreading rumours.”

At the same time, the Ministry of Public Security has designated online rumour-related violations and crimes as a key enforcement priority. During the 2023 “Jingwang” (Clean Internet) special campaign, public security authorities nationwide investigated and handled more than 4,800 related cases, penalised more than 6,300 individuals, and shut down 34,000 illegal accounts. The Ministry of Public Security designated 2024 as a special rectification “Year of Action,” continuing to carry out “full-chain, full-platform, full-domain” crackdowns on the online rumour industry chain. In this enforcement environment, those who engage in reputation-infringing conduct face unprecedentedly high risks, while victims—including corporate leaders—can expect more rapid responses and stronger protection from law enforcement authorities.

VI. Response Strategies and Best Practices

In the face of an ever-changing market environment, relying solely on traditional public relations responses is no longer sufficient to effectively resolve crises. In the past, many enterprises, when confronted with reputation crises, tended to adopt ad hoc PR remedial measures or even sought illegal post-deletion services, ultimately “going from victim to violator.” Today, the compliant and effective approach in the Chinese market is to deeply integrate legal measures with public relations strategies. This means that many critical decisions by corporate PR departments require the deep involvement and professional assessment of legal departments at the earliest stages.

Drawing on current trends, this article distills six core strategies for enterprises to respond to reputation crises:

Preserve Evidence and File Complaints Immediately

Rapid response is the key to protecting one’s rights. Upon discovering online smear content, an enterprise must immediately preserve evidence through technical means such as screenshots, timestamps, blockchain-based evidence preservation, or notarisation. Critically, if the enterprise suspects an organised “internet troll army” attack, it should, under the guidance of professional lawyers, engage specialised technical institutions to complete evidence preservation and source-tracing work. The purpose is to expose the organised nature of the infringing conduct, reframing what appears on the surface to be scattered complaints or bandwagon comments by ordinary netizens into a clearly identifiable, premeditated, coordinated operation. At the same time, enterprises should make full use of the complaint and reporting channels on major platforms such as Weibo and Douyin, selecting specialised categories such as “rumour” or “infringement” when filing reports. Under the aforementioned online violence governance regulations, platforms have a statutory obligation to act swiftly. If infringing content can be taken down within hours, the spread of rumours can be effectively halted, minimising the “rumour dissemination window.”

Leverage Platform Fact-Checking Mechanisms

Major social media platforms have all launched dedicated rumour-debunking mechanisms. Enterprises should proactively provide the platform’s verification teams with evidence such as official data and third-party reports, and request fact-checking. Once the relevant content is verified as false information, the platform will label it with a “false information” tag or issue a clarification announcement, effectively reducing the negative impact of the false information. In the 2025 Pang Donglai online reputation incident, Douyin’s timely removal of malicious videos and restriction of related topic dissemination proved to be a critical measure in defusing the situation.

Respond Promptly Through Official Accounts

Issuing timely, truthful, and rational statements through the enterprise’s official social media accounts is a core element in regaining control of the public narrative. Best practice involves: refuting false allegations one by one with evidence, while clearly expressing the enterprise’s determination to defend its rights. The tone of the statement should remain rational and non-confrontational to win the understanding and support of the broader rational online community. The statement should be pinned to the top of the account’s homepage and published simultaneously across all platforms, ensuring that the reach of the clarification covers that of the false information.

File Civil Litigation

Filing civil litigation serves a dual purpose: first, to have the judicial authority determine the truth of the facts; and second, to deter subsequent infringing dissemination. Chinese courts have a relatively low threshold for accepting defamation cases. Even if the eventual monetary compensation is limited, a court’s effective judgment and the defendant’s public apology often play a more significant role in restoring the enterprise’s reputation than monetary compensation alone. At the same time, depending on the urgency of the case, the enterprise may apply for pre-litigation interim measures, requiring the infringing party to remove the allegedly infringing content during the pendency of the proceedings. The very act of filing suit can often shift the online narrative to some extent, sending a clear signal to the outside world that the enterprise possesses sufficient evidence and is resolute in defending its rights.

Seek Public Security Intervention in Cases of Serious Infringement

If an enterprise encounters egregious, organised infringement or extortion-style smear campaigns, it should immediately report the matter to public security authorities. When the smear campaign meets the “serious circumstances” standard (such as widespread dissemination of related videos causing public misunderstanding, or serious reputational harm to corporate leaders), the enterprise may file a report on grounds of defamation or insult. If there is evidence of coordinated “malicious PR” operations or extortion, public security authorities may initiate criminal investigations into crimes such as picking quarrels and provoking trouble, or extortion, in accordance with law. The initiation of a criminal case has an immediate deterrent effect: once the police announce the commencement of a criminal investigation, relevant netizens often proactively delete infringing posts and distance themselves from the incident.

Join Forces with Third Parties

Finally, leveraging the credibility of reliable third parties can further amplify the dissemination of factual clarifications. Issuing press releases to authoritative media or inviting industry experts to provide objective analysis can enhance the credibility of the facts from a neutral perspective. However, it is essential to strictly ensure that all published information is truthful and verifiable, to avoid a backlash caused by inaccuracies.

VII. Conclusion: Turning the Tide of Public Opinion Through Legal Means and Restoring the Truth

Legal practice in the field of reputation management in China is rapidly maturing, with an increasingly well-developed legal system, continuously strengthened enforcement, and more professional corporate response strategies. The Civil Code’s clear definition of the right of reputation provides aggrieved parties with accessible civil remedies; regulators and public security authorities are intensifying their punishment of malicious rumour-mongering and dissemination; and platforms, bearing statutory “notice-and-takedown” obligations and online violence governance responsibilities, have become an important collaborative force in curbing defamation.

For general counsel, establishing an integrated response model that deeply combines legal measures with public relations strategies has become an inevitable trend. Leading domestic law firms have already begun forming cross-disciplinary specialised task forces that combine legal research with practical response tools. Looking ahead, developments in this field will become increasingly refined, including greater use of technology to achieve early warning of infringing conduct and the establishment of standardised evidence preservation protocols.

Multinational enterprises must recognise that China has established a comprehensive framework for defamation governance and cyberspace regulation. Victims of false information now have a more diverse array of avenues for protecting their rights: from demanding that platforms promptly remove infringing content, to requesting courts to order infringing parties to issue public apologies, and even, in certain circumstances, pursuing criminal liability against the perpetrators. The core challenge for enterprises is how to effectively employ these legal tools within the legal framework to repair their reputation, rather than simply escalating conflicts. By promptly exercising the rights of redress conferred by law and working closely with regulators and online platforms, enterprises can minimise the negative impact of online defamation, restore the truth, and safeguard their valuable business reputation assets.

Special Disclaimer:

The content of this article is translated from the Defamation & Reputation Management 2026 guide published by Chambers and Partners, an internationally authoritative legal ranking institution, and is intended to provide a reference on Chinese legal practice. It does not constitute any formal legal opinion.

This article represents only the personal views of the authors and does not represent any form of legal opinion or advice issued by Dacheng or its lawyers. If you wish to reprint or cite any content from this article, please contact us; no reprinting or use is permitted without consent. When reprinting or citing, the source must be acknowledged.