Online Reputation Governance Monthly Report (June 2026)

Theme of the Month: The “Justice for the Underdog” Trap in Corporate Reputation Governance — Why Legitimate Rights Enforcement Triggers Public Backlash, and How Enterprises Can Hold the Line

Three Key Takeaways This Month

1. Regulatory Signals This Month: Cyberspace regulators have taken intensive action — the Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment and the Standards for Online Review Activities both took effect this month, compounded by the Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment (effective August 20) and the “Qinglang · Rectifying Account Name and Information Irregularities” special campaign. The institutional toolkit for corporate reputation protection is being simultaneously reinforced along three tracks: “platform account enforcement,” “review activity standards,” and “data compliance documentation.”
2. Case Insight This Month: This month’s focus is the “Yu Jian Xiao Mian” (Meet Little Noodles) trademark enforcement controversy — a procedurally legitimate enforcement action that escalated within four days into a reputational crisis involving stock price pressure and a founder’s public apology. It brings to the fore a frequently overlooked proposition: legality, compliance, and reasonableness are three distinct matters; procedural propriety does not equal online reputation safety.
3. Counsel’s Recommendation This Month: Build an “online reputation stress test” into the legal decision-making process from the outset. For enforcement actions targeting small or micro counterparties, or undertaken during IPO or sensitive windows, apply the “four-question test” (power asymmetry, proportionality, timing, messaging) before initiation; all external communications (especially counsel’s wording) must be incorporated into unified corporate messaging management.

Governance Signals This Month

This month’s regulatory landscape presents a clear logical thread: on one hand, providing enterprises with “enhanced protection” — the Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment requires platforms to address “malicious review articles” and “verification letter” accounts; on the other hand, drawing “red lines” for market conduct — the Standards for Online Review Activities and the Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment establish rules for review conduct and data compliance respectively. The following is a section-by-section analysis of the background, key points, and implications for corporate reputation governance.

I. Major Internet Platforms Jointly Formulate and Publish the “Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment”

Issuing Authority: Guided by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC); jointly formulated and published by major internet platforms

Date of Issue: June 12, 2026

On June 12, 2026, under the guidance of the CAC, major internet platforms jointly formulated and published the Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment. Its introduction directly addresses the persistent pain points of enterprise-infringing information such as “malicious review articles,” “verification letter extortion,” and “astroturfing campaigns” that have proven resistant to remediation, and which individual enterprises struggle to resolve through platform mechanisms alone. The Convention aims to consolidate platform accountability through industry self-regulation and improve the online business environment.

The provisions of greatest interest to enterprises are those that codify specific platform enforcement obligations targeting the most intractable categories of illicit activity. Article 8 directly targets “fake oversight, real extortion,” explicitly requiring platforms to take decisive action against self-media accounts that send enterprises “negative information verification letters,” as well as accounts that collect fees under various pretexts to conduct so-called enterprise oversight — tactics that were previously the most common yet most difficult for enterprises to address independently, now designated as platform obligations for the first time. Article 9 further “cuts off the revenue stream” by revoking the monetisation privileges of self-media accounts that frequently publish negative enterprise content, explicitly encompassing traffic revenue sharing, advertising income, product promotion, and livestream tipping. Article 10 requires “joint enforcement against information, accounts, and organisations” — extending beyond content removal and account suspension to coordinated action against the MCN agencies to which accounts belong, responding to the reality that malicious review articles have become “institutionalised and organised.” Article 4 addresses the “amplification effect” of dissemination, requiring that trending topics and hot lists must not display AI-generated negative enterprise information, entrepreneurs’ “verbal sparring,” private life content, or unverified negative enterprise-related trending topics. Compared to the framework established by Articles 1195 and 1197 of the Civil Code — the “notice-and-necessary-measures” rule and the “knows or should have known” joint liability standard — the Convention translates these principles into an actionable enforcement checklist: from the scope of content to be removed (privacy violations, insult and defamation, false and misleading information, bot and astroturfing accounts), to enforcement tiers (traffic throttling, monetisation revocation, account suspension, MCN coordination), to the credibility mechanism (Article 6 requires platforms to accept public statements from enterprise official accounts and promptly remove information inconsistent with such statements) — all comprehensively addressed.

For enterprises, platform enforcement that previously often required litigation to trigger now has an additional basis in industry self-regulation that can be directly cited at the complaint stage. Specifically: upon receiving “negative information verification letters” or encountering accounts that threaten “pay up or we publish,” enterprises should preserve records of fee demands and correspondence, cite Articles 8 and 9 to demand platform enforcement and revocation of monetisation privileges, and simultaneously assess whether the conduct crosses the criminal threshold for extortion; when facing homogenised enterprise-related comments from bot or astroturfing accounts, enterprises may demand batch enforcement and preservation of account matrix evidence to support subsequent MCN liability claims under Article 10; when encountering false negative content, enterprises should first issue verified statements through their official accounts, then cite Article 6 to require platforms to remove information inconsistent with such statements.

Original text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/mULIcflPzXfdv6MdlkKl4w

II. The CAC and the State Administration for Market Regulation Jointly Issue the “Standards for Online Review Activities”

Issuing Authority: Cyberspace Administration of China; State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR)

Date of Issue: June 8, 2026

On June 8, 2026, the CAC and SAMR jointly issued the Standards for Online Review Activities. Targeting irregularities such as “reviewing without testing,” “combining commerce with testing,” and “using negative reviews as a vehicle for commercial disparagement,” the Standards comprise 12 articles designed to delineate the boundaries of online review conduct — protecting legitimate oversight while curbing disparagement conducted under the guise of reviews.

The Standards decompose “malicious reviews” into determinable behavioural red lines. Article 4 requires that reviews involving functional or performance testing must be conducted by institutions with statutory inspection and testing qualifications, following established standards, with the basis clearly stated and sample data retained. Article 5 requires that reviews based solely on subjective experience without actual testing must prominently display labels such as “personal experience only” or “subjective impression, for reference only.” Article 6 establishes multiple prohibitions — no applying different standards or methods for horizontal or vertical comparisons of similar products, no taking inspection reports out of context, no elevating the reviewed product by disparaging others, no using insulting language, and no making false or misleading product descriptions or engaging in malicious disparagement. Article 3 requires prominent disclosure where the reviewer has a commissioning, sponsorship, or interest relationship with the reviewed party. These rules effectively operationalise Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2025 Revision) (regulating false or misleading commercial publicity, including organised fake reviews) and Article 12 (regulating commercial disparagement that damages competitors’ business reputation) in the specific context of online reviews — what constitutes “misleading” comparison, what constitutes “disparagement,” and what interest relationships must be disclosed now have operational benchmarks.

The Standards provide enterprises with a yardstick for determining “whether a negative review has crossed the line.” As the reviewed party, upon encountering a negative review, enterprises should first conduct a self-assessment against Articles 4, 5, and 6 — examining whether the reviewer has qualifications, whether actual testing was conducted, whether comparisons are one-sided or insulting language is used — to distinguish between legitimate oversight that should be tolerated and commercial disparagement that warrants enforcement action. Enterprises should preserve evidence of the reviewer’s interest connections with competitors and monetisation activities, preparing for future commercial disparagement claims under Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. As the marketing party, enterprises commissioning reviews or KOL promotions must prominently label them as “advertising” per Article 7 to avoid crossing the line themselves.

Original text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VPLVMyoSueTLmwQyxN-tQA

III. The CAC Launches the “Qinglang · Rectifying Account Name and Information Irregularities” Special Campaign

On June 18, 2026, the CAC launched the “Qinglang · Rectifying Account Name and Information Irregularities” special campaign for a three-month period. Account names serve as the primary entry point for online identity; impersonation, counterfeiting, and name-squatting for traffic diversion have long plagued enterprises and the public. This campaign targets “account names” as the focal point for concentrated governance.

The campaign focuses on four categories of violations: name impersonation (impersonating official institutions, media outlets, and public figures), identity disguise (adding unverified credentials, impersonating specific professions, exploiting trending topics, and using “shadow accounts” for fraudulent donations), embedding prohibited information (unauthorised external links, unauthorised account reinstatement), and black/grey market activities related to account names (fabricating false data). It effectively consolidates the protection of reputation rights under Article 1024 of the Civil Code, trademark and enterprise name rights protection, and platform real-name registration and verification management into the specific entry point of “account names,” providing a three-month concentrated enforcement window.

This represents a rare window of opportunity for enterprises to address long-standing pain points such as “counterfeit brand official accounts, fake executive accounts, and name-squatting for traffic diversion.” Enterprises are advised to systematically identify all counterfeit and imitative accounts across the internet, preserve evidence, and file concentrated complaints during the campaign period; simultaneously, they should refine and publicise their official account verification roster to reduce public confusion; for “shadow accounts” and “trending-topic impersonation” cases, assess the combined approach of “platform complaint + reputation rights/trademark rights enforcement.”

Original text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jV0JpmBgWXaG906zjrzGpg

IV. The CAC, MIIT, and Others Issue the “Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment”

Issuing Authority: Cyberspace Administration of China; Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT); Ministry of Public Security

Date of Issue: June 18, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the CAC, MIIT, and the Ministry of Public Security promulgated the Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment as Order No. 24, effective August 20, 2026. Although Article 30 of the Data Security Law and Article 33 of the Regulations on Network Data Security Management already require important data processors to conduct periodic annual risk assessments and submit reports, the operational questions of “how to assess, who assesses, how to report after assessment, and consequences of non-reporting” remained unclear. These Measures fill that operational gap.

The Measures transform “periodic assessment” into an actionable checklist. Assessment frequency now has a mandatory standard: Article 5 requires important data processors to conduct annual risk assessments, with timely assessments of changed portions when the security status of important data undergoes material changes, and encourages general data processors to conduct assessments at least every three years. Assessment methods and institutions are subject to constraints: Article 7 permits self-assessment or third-party engagement; Article 11 prohibits assessment institutions from subcontracting; Article 12 further stipulates that the same institution and its affiliates may not conduct annual assessments for the same processor more than three consecutive times, preventing conflicts of interest. Report retention and submission now have deadlines: Article 15 requires reports to be retained for at least three years; Article 16 requires submission to the competent authority within 20 business days of completing the annual assessment. Non-remediation carries consequences: Article 19 provides that where conduct endangers national security or public interest and the processor refuses to remediate, authorities may order cessation of important data processing. Compared to the principled requirements of the two superior laws, the Measures operationalise them into full-process rules covering frequency, institutional qualifications and rotation, report retention periods, submission deadlines, and remediation and enforcement.

Data breaches are often the trigger for reputational crises, and these Measures make “compliance documentation” a critical piece of evidence for post-incident online reputation response and demonstrating that the enterprise has fulfilled its duty of care. Enterprises should first determine whether they qualify as “important data processors,” establish annual assessment mechanisms accordingly, and plan for three-year report retention; when selecting third-party assessment institutions, note the “no more than three consecutive times” rotation requirement; and incorporate “data breach response + external messaging” into crisis communication plans to avoid the passive position of “responding before verifying.”

Original text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ypoiNq_5IxGtLw8o9pg9xQ (Press Q&A: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Imf0bYykZNe_IZNMqFOYpA)

V. The CAC Issues the “Notice on Personal Information Collection and Use Issues in 30 Apps”

On June 11, 2026, following organised testing, the CAC issued the Notice on Personal Information Collection and Use Issues in 30 Apps. Based on the Cybersecurity Law, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Regulations on Network Data Security Management, and the Methods for Identifying Illegal Collection and Use of Personal Information by Apps, the notice identifies personal information collection and use issues in a batch of apps and requires rectification within a specified period.

The notice focuses on four categories of issues: failure to publicly disclose collection and use rules, frequent requests for unnecessary permissions, failure to completely and accurately list SDK collection practices, and failure to provide effective account deletion functionality, with rectification required within 15 business days of the notice. While these issues may appear to be technical details, they represent the most commonly overlooked and most easily exploited vulnerabilities in personal information compliance.

Being named in such a notice is itself a reputational event, highly susceptible to amplification by competitors and self-media as a “compliance vulnerability.” Enterprises should conduct self-inspections of their apps and mini-programs against the four categories, with particular focus on the most commonly overlooked account deletion functionality and SDK disclosures; establish a “notice issued — rapid remediation — external explanation” contingency plan to avoid secondary online reputation crises caused by delayed rectification; and incorporate personal information compliance into their reputational risk map, coordinating with the aforementioned Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment.

Original text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6lY8jw9fdBDb6sueEkD-4g

Key Online Reputation Incident Review This Month

This incident is a textbook example of the “Justice for the Underdog” trap — a listed company’s procedurally legitimate trademark enforcement action, which, because the counterparty was a husband-and-wife noodle shop and the communication posture was perceived as condescending, was framed by online reputation as “the big bullying the small,” escalating within four days into a reputational crisis involving stock price pressure and the founder’s midnight apology. The question it raises is not “can you sue?” but rather “what will happen to online reputation after you sue, and is the enterprise prepared to bear the consequences?”

Incident Overview

According to multiple media outlets and industry analyses: Yu Jian Xiao Mian (Meet Little Noodles, 2408.HK), which listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on December 5, 2025 and is known as the “first Chinese noodle shop stock,” filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in June 2026 against a husband-and-wife noodle shop named “Yu Jian Xiao Mian” (a homophone variant) in Nanyang, Henan Province (case number reportedly (2026) Yu 1391 Zhi Min Chu No. 881), seeking an order to stop using the trade name, a change to the registered business name, and damages of approximately RMB 7,000–8,000, with the original hearing date set for June 17. On June 11–12, the Livelihood Channel of Henan Radio and Television interviewed the shop owner; related short videos went viral on Douyin and WeChat Video, with the hashtag #ListedCompanySuesCouple’sNoodleShopForTrademarkInfringement# trending on multiple platforms, and online opinion overwhelmingly sympathised with the small shop while questioning “trademark bullying.” On June 12, Yu Jian Xiao Mian communicated its withdrawal of the lawsuit; on June 13, it issued a statement; on June 15 in the early morning hours, founder Song Qi published an apology letter, announcing the free transfer of the Class 35 “Yu Jian Xiao Mian” trademark to the counterparty, termination of cooperation with the outsourced law firm, and provision of pro bono trademark assistance for small and micro food and beverage businesses. (Sources: Online Reputation and Crisis PR official account https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/C-BajpyrK_ORKagAzcG88w; Dacheng Shanghai Office https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/V5WyLxJxivUtFXUPAjvPhQ; Shiwei Technology https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Oc7kty4e05AbEzaJTdp4BQ; Guangming Net https://m.gmw.cn/2026-06/15/content_1304496768.htm; The Paper https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_33380578)

Online Reputation Flashpoints

• The visual impact of the power asymmetry ignited emotions: According to reports, the shop owner tearfully stated on camera, “For noodles at eight yuan a bowl, we’d have to sell at least a thousand bowls,” creating a stark contrast with the image of a “Hong Kong-listed company + representing counsel,” instantly activating the public’s “justice for the underdog” psychology — a listed company suing a couple’s noodle shop is inherently positioned on the opposite side of public sympathy.
• Representing counsel’s wording escalated the controversy further: According to reports, the original representing counsel’s statements — “three of the four characters are the same,” “no settlement without compensation,” “we’ll see you in court” — were widely disseminated. There is an easily overlooked principle of online reputation dynamics: in corporate rights enforcement scenarios, external statements by representing counsel are perceived by the public as the enterprise’s own attitude — when counsel pursues precision and assertiveness in legal expression, it may simultaneously create an impression of arrogance in the court of public opinion.
• Dissemination structure (quantified): According to Shiwei Online Reputation Monitoring, from 00:00 on June 12 to 16:00 on June 15, 2026, approximately 384,000 related items were recorded, peaking at 12:00 on June 15; platforms were dominated by short video (approximately 51.7%) and news apps (approximately 39.8%); sentiment was approximately 47.5% neutral, 40.7% negative, and 11.8% positive; content type was predominantly commentary (approximately 83.6%). Short video dominance + commentary dominance means rapid emotional diffusion and limited space for rational clarification (Source: Shiwei Technology, ibid.).
• Secondary online reputation escalated the brand crisis into a trust crisis: Following the lawsuit withdrawal, reports indicated that some stored-value members initiated concentrated refunds, with rumours of “restricted refund experiences” emerging, shifting the focus from “trademark enforcement” to “how the enterprise treats its own consumers.” For chain restaurant businesses dependent on member repeat purchases, the second wave of crisis inflicted greater substantive harm.

Legal Risk Points

• Trademark dimension: Legal prospects and distinctiveness. According to analysis by the Dacheng Shanghai Office, in Class 43 restaurant services, the distinctiveness of “xiao mian” (little noodles) is relatively weak; “Yu Jian” (Meet) and “Yu Jian” (a homophone variant) differ in their first character and overall meaning, making the prospects of prevailing far from optimistic. This directly touches upon the “fair use” defence under Article 59 of the Trademark Law and the core of trademark similarity assessment — when an action has only approximately a fifty percent chance of legal success yet must withstand one hundred percent of online reputation pressure, whether to initiate it in the first place warrants reassessment.
• Rights exercise dimension: Procedural legality ≠ legitimacy of enforcement. According to reports, Yu Jian Xiao Mian had previously engaged an outsourced law firm to file batch lawsuits against small shops with similar trade names in multiple locations. Article 7 of the Trademark Law establishes the principle of good faith in trademark registration and use; Guiding Case No. 82 further clarifies: where a party violates good faith, obtains and exercises trademark rights through improper means, and asserts infringement against others, this constitutes abuse of rights, and the court shall not support such claims. Combined with precedents such as the Qing Hua Jiao (green Sichuan pepper) case (fair use) and the Tongguan Roujiamo case (geographical indications may not be used for cross-regional fee collection), the “batch registration + forced paid settlement” model of “enforcement factories” rests on an unstable legal foundation.
• Consumer relations dimension: Compliance triggers for secondary online reputation. Stored-value refunds are consumers’ legitimate rights; any deficiency in the refund experience is easily interpreted as “a big store bullying customers,” resonating with the “big bullying small” narrative. When managing the first wave of crisis, enterprises must simultaneously anticipate the second wave of reactions that each remedial action may trigger.
• Listed company dimension: Reputation–stock price–disclosure linkage. According to reports, the stock price came under pressure during the incident (intraday decline exceeding 6% on a single day, cumulative decline of approximately fifty percent from the IPO price). When operational disputes begin to affect the secondary market, crisis management is no longer solely the marketing department’s responsibility — legal, board secretary’s office, and investor relations must collaboratively assess “whether this constitutes a disclosable event, and whether the founder’s personal statements may be interpreted as corporate commitments.”

Response Assessment

• What was done right: Timely lawsuit withdrawal; the apology letter contained all essential elements (acknowledging error — no blame-shifting — offering a costly concrete action in the free transfer of the trademark — reestablishing value orientation); the sequence of accountability was prudent (first characterising the incident as an internal management failure, then mentioning termination of the outsourced law firm, avoiding the perception of “blaming the law firm”).
• Areas for improvement: The enforcement initiation lacked a predictive process that “places legal actions within the online reputation coordinate system”; representing counsel’s external wording was not subject to online reputation review; the timing of clarification regarding secondary (stored-value refund) online reputation lagged behind emotional escalation.

Implications for Enterprises

Legality, compliance, and reasonableness are three distinct matters. For enforcement actions “targeting small and micro counterparties, undertaken during IPO/sensitive windows,” enterprises should set initiation thresholds far higher than normal, and ensure that legal, PR, and external counsel sit at the same table “before taking action” — which is precisely the problem that the “four-question stress test” in the following section aims to solve.

In-Depth Theme This Month

Theme: The “Four-Question Stress Test” Before Corporate IP Rights Enforcement — Integrating Reputational Risk Assessment into the Legal Decision-Making Process

In an environment where any dispute can be instantly recorded, edited, and disseminated, every legal action by an enterprise is simultaneously an online reputation action. One purpose of rights enforcement is to protect business reputation, yet mishandled enforcement can destroy business reputation at even greater speed. The following “four questions” translate the lessons from cases such as “Yu Jian Xiao Mian,” “Qing Hua Jiao,” and “Tongguan Roujiamo” into a checklist tool that can be applied item by item during enforcement project initiation.

• Question 1 · Power Asymmetry: Will the enforcement target lead the public to construct a “bullying the weak” narrative? A listed company versus a couple’s shop, a leading brand versus a sole proprietor, a platform versus a small merchant — these pairings inherently occupy the side of public sympathy; once the “big bullying small” frame is established, it is virtually irreversible. From a legal perspective, Article 59 of the Trademark Law preserves fair use defences for generic names and geographical names (both the Qing Hua Jiao and Tongguan Roujiamo cases denied rights holders’ expansive claims on this basis). Enforcement against such counterparties inherently carries uncertain legal prospects and high reputational risk, requiring initiation thresholds far above normal.
• Question 2 · Proportionality: Are the enforcement means proportionate to the harm suffered? Direct litigation with high damages claims, compared to first sending a letter requesting negotiation and rectification, represents a far more aggressive action. When actual harm is difficult to quantify and the amount in dispute is minimal (as in this case, a few thousand yuan), deploying litigation, the heaviest tool, is easily interpreted as “pressing one’s advantage mercilessly.” This also echoes the adjudicative spirit of Guiding Case No. 82 — the exercise of rights must conform to the principle of good faith; otherwise, it may be deemed abuse of rights. Disproportionality is not merely an online reputation issue; it may also be a legal issue.
• Question 3 · Timing: Has the enforcement action preserved “space for withdrawal and remediation after online reputation escalation”? Once litigation is initiated and assertive statements are made, withdrawal becomes “losing face.” Enforcement should proceed in stages, placing the most irreversible and aggressive actions (filing suit, public damages demands) last, first employing reversible means such as letters and negotiation to probe, preserving a window for observation and manoeuvre as online opinion develops.
• Question 4 · Messaging: Have all external spokespersons (especially representing counsel) had their wording subjected to online reputation review? Outsourced law firms typically bear responsibility only for legal outcomes, not for corporate reputation; their performance incentives do not include an online reputation dimension. Enterprises should pre-agree external messaging protocols with external counsel, clearly defining counsel’s boundaries of expression before the media — counsel may firmly assert legal positions but need not adopt a condescending tone. The post-hoc action of “terminating cooperation with the outsourced law firm” in this case was precisely the price paid for this coordination gap.

Implementation Recommendation: If any of the four questions yields an unsettling answer, initiation should be suspended or the approach adjusted. The “four questions” can be formalised into an “Enforcement Project Initiation Review Form” (see the Toolbox below), led by legal with PR co-sign-off, and external counsel’s public statements incorporated into corporate online reputation messaging management. (Methodology sources: Dacheng Shanghai Office https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/V5WyLxJxivUtFXUPAjvPhQ; group psychology perspective: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/C-BajpyrK_ORKagAzcG88w)

Counsel’s Prescription

A methodology for enterprises facing “legitimate rights enforcement met with online reputation backlash” and general enterprise-related online reputation incidents. This section does not evaluate the merits of individual cases or make factual determinations; it sets out adjudicative rules with reference to precedent cases identified this month, citing specific provisions that may be invoked.

I. Legal Risks and Response Strategies for Enterprises Facing “Legitimate Enforcement Met with Online Reputation Backlash”

Enterprises in the position of “legitimate enforcement met with online reputation backlash” often simultaneously face legal risks from multiple directions: first, mischaracterising legitimate public oversight or commercial reviews as infringement, thereby falling into the passive position of “the big suppressing the small”; second, encountering false facts and commercial disparagement conducted under the guise of oversight for profit; third, encountering insulting or defamatory “malicious review articles” strategically timed to coincide with transaction milestones; fourth, platform inaction causing expansion of damages; and fifth, the enterprise’s own enforcement, if the acquisition or exercise of rights is improper, potentially being deemed abuse of rights. The following sets out each category of risk, its triggering circumstances, and enterprise prevention and response strategies, in light of this month’s theme and relevant adjudicative rules.

The first category of risk arises from “treating legitimate oversight as infringement.” Article 1025 of the Civil Code provides that news reporting and oversight by public opinion conducted in the public interest that affects another’s reputation shall in principle not give rise to liability, unless the actor fabricates or distorts facts, fails to fulfil reasonable verification obligations regarding seriously inaccurate content provided by others, or uses insulting language. This boundary was made concrete in the Daikexi review case ((2022) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 1222): the court did not categorically favour the reviewed enterprise but examined item by item whether the review content had an objective basis — criticisms with objective support, such as errors in experimental methodology standards or passing off inferior goods as genuine, constitute legitimate oversight that enterprises should tolerate; only content making one-sided comparisons or baselessly alleging “fraud” or “deception” was deemed false or misleading information. This standard is structurally identical to Articles 5 and 6 of this month’s Standards for Online Review Activities (requiring labelling of subjective impressions, prohibiting one-sided comparisons, prohibiting insulting language). For enterprises, the first step upon encountering a negative review is not to send a letter or file suit, but to ask “does the other party have an objective basis?” If so, the enterprise should tolerate or respond rationally; hasty enforcement is highly likely to trigger online reputation backlash as “the big suppressing the small.” Only when the other party crosses the boundary of objective basis should the enterprise transition to the enforcement pathway for the next category of risk.

The second category of risk is encountering “commercial disparagement disguised as oversight.” Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2025 Revision) prohibits operators from fabricating, disseminating, or directing others to fabricate or disseminate false or misleading information that damages other operators’ business reputation or product reputation; Article 28 prescribes penalties including orders to cease, elimination of effects, and fines of RMB 100,000 to 1,000,000, with fines of RMB 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 for serious circumstances. The “Online Black Mouth” case ((2025) Yu 10 Zhi Min Chu No. 38, Supreme People’s Court 2025 IP Typical Case) provides a replicable standard for what constitutes commercial disparagement: the actor published untrue videos about enterprise product quality and profit models under the guise of “anti-counterfeiting” and “oversight,” diverting traffic to promote affiliated enterprises’ products. The court focused on three elements — content falsity, competitive relationship or profit motive vis-à-vis the disparaged enterprise, and actual dissemination — finding commercial disparagement established, awarding RMB 2.6 million in damages, and issuing a behavioural preservation injunction to the self-media platform. For enterprises, identifying this category of risk requires monitoring three factors: “falsity + competitive relationship or profit motive + dissemination data.” When all three are present, enterprises may simultaneously assert commercial disparagement and reputation rights claims, and apply for behavioural preservation at the earliest opportunity to mitigate losses; conversely, if the other party merely offers well-founded sharp criticism, Article 12 should not be forcibly applied, lest the enterprise be accused of “using litigation to suppress oversight.”

The third category of risk is encountering insulting or defamatory “malicious review articles.” Article 1024 of the Civil Code protects reputation rights and prohibits infringement through insult or defamation. The self-media malicious review article case (Beijing Internet Court typical case) identifies two signals for determining when conduct crosses the line: first, timing — the article was published on the day before the enterprise’s affiliate signed a contract, indicating a clear purpose of causing harm; second, mode of expression — using insulting terms such as “fraud,” “shameless,” and “robbery” while fabricating untrue narratives, exceeding the boundaries of oversight. On this basis, the court found reputation rights infringement established and awarded damages. For enterprises, sensitive windows such as major transactions, IPOs, and financings warrant intensified online reputation monitoring; upon encountering such malicious review articles, enterprises must immediately preserve three categories of evidence — “publication timing, dissemination scope, and competitive nexus” — as the publication timing and competitive nexus are often the key factors that elevate a simple reputation rights dispute into a “malicious review article — unfair competition” chain of liability.

The fourth category of risk is platform inaction causing expansion of damages — this is both a risk and a lever that enterprises can proactively deploy. Article 1195 of the Civil Code establishes the “notice-and-necessary-measures” rule: after a rights holder issues a notice containing preliminary evidence of infringement and authentic identity information, the platform shall promptly forward it and take necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, or link disconnection; failure to take timely measures results in joint and several liability for the expanded portion of damages. Article 1197 further provides that where a platform knows or should have known of infringement yet fails to act, it bears joint and several liability. Combined with Articles 6 and 10 of this month’s Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment, enterprise complaints should simultaneously cite the above provisions and the Convention, requiring platforms not merely to remove information but to “jointly address information and accounts” and coordinate with the affiliated MCN agencies.

The fifth category of risk points to the enterprise itself: if enforcement is improper, it may be deemed abuse of rights, resulting in “winning the trademark, losing public sentiment, and possibly losing the lawsuit too.” Article 7 of the Trademark Law establishes the principle of good faith in trademark registration and use; Guiding Case No. 82 further clarifies: where a party violates good faith, obtains and exercises trademark rights through improper means, and asserts infringement against others, this constitutes abuse of rights, and the court shall not support such claims. Combining the adjudicative rules of that case with this month’s “Yu Jian Xiao Mian” incident, several specific circumstances that readily trigger findings of rights abuse can be identified for enterprises to self-assess before enforcement initiation: first, “knowing bad-faith registration” on the rights acquisition end — registering as trademarks trade names, generic names, or geographical names already in use by others; second, imbalance between enforcement targets and means — filing batch lawsuits against numerous husband-and-wife shops and sole proprietors using similar trade names; third, alienation of enforcement purpose — using “enforcement” as a pretext for “forced paid settlement,” treating litigation as a revenue tool — combined with precedents such as the Qing Hua Jiao case (fair use of generic names) and the Tongguan Roujiamo case (geographical indications may not be used for cross-regional fee collection), this “batch registration + forced payment” model of “enforcement factories” rests on an inherently unstable legal foundation. To prevent this category of risk, enterprises should self-examine three points before enforcement initiation: whether rights acquisition was in good faith, whether enforcement targets and amounts in dispute are proportionate, and whether lighter means such as letters and negotiation have been exhausted — these three points also constitute the legal foundation of the “four-question stress test” below.

There is also a borderline category of risk: when facing accounts that threaten “pay up or we publish negative content” or “collect fees under the guise of enterprise oversight,” Article 8 of this month’s Self-Regulatory Convention already explicitly requires platforms to take decisive action. At the enterprise level, fee demands, correspondence records, and financial transactions should be preserved, first pursuing platform enforcement and civil remedies; whether the conduct constitutes extortion should be determined by judicial authorities in accordance with law — enterprises should not unilaterally make public characterisations, so as to avoid stating as established fact a criminal matter that remains to be adjudicated.

II. Enterprise Response Pathway (In Chronological Order, With Citable Authorities)

0–6 hours: Internal fact-checking; identification of online reputation source and dissemination nodes; screenshots, screen recordings, and web page preservation/notarisation of key pages (preparing “preliminary evidence” for Article 1195 of the Civil Code); unification of internal and external messaging; suspension of all unverified categorical statements.

6–24 hours: File platform complaints citing Article 1195 of the Civil Code + Articles 6 and 10 of this month’s Self-Regulatory Convention, demanding deletion/traffic throttling/account enforcement; for review-related matters, assess boundary violations against Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Standards for Online Review Activities; subject lawyer’s letters and statements to online reputation review (avoiding “pay up or we’ll see you in court” expressions); synchronise with business, customer service, PR, and legal teams.

24–72 hours: Assess the applicable boundaries and gradations of civil litigation (reputation rights / Article 12 commercial disparagement under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law), behavioural preservation and personality rights injunctions (Article 997 of the Civil Code), administrative complaints, and criminal reporting — noting the distinction between civil disputes, administrative violations, and criminal offences, avoiding premature characterisation; further revision of external responses; anticipate secondary online reputation that each remedial action may trigger (e.g., refund experience, disclosure linkage).

Beyond 72 hours: Strengthen the evidence chain; track platform enforcement outcomes; refine litigation/reporting materials; brand reputation repair; formalise the “online reputation stress test” as a standing mechanism; establish long-term monitoring.

III. Action Selection Under Different Scenarios

Scenario	Typical Manifestation	Preferred Action	Cautious Action	Not Recommended
Enterprise “proactive enforcement” against small/micro counterparties	Small amount in dispute; counterparty is sole proprietor/couple’s shop	Conduct “four-question stress test” first; letter and negotiation	Direct litigation + high-profile damages claims	Outsourced law firm “batch filing, pay up or see you in court”
Legitimate negative review/criticism	Oversight with objective basis (Daikexi case)	Internal verification; rational response if necessary	Suing the reviewer	Suppressing legitimate oversight under the label of “commercial disparagement”
False facts / malicious review articles	Fabricated, baseless, timed to transaction milestones	Evidence preservation + platform complaint + reputation rights/Anti-Unfair Competition Law Article 12 enforcement	Public “confrontation”	Making infringement or criminal characterisations without evidence collection
Astroturfing / organised attacks	Short-duration high-density, identical messaging, traffic monetisation	Preserve dissemination data; apply for personality rights injunction/behavioural preservation	Individual post removal	Hiring “counter-malicious PR” for reverse campaigning
Impersonation/counterfeit accounts	Fake official accounts, fake executive accounts	Leverage “Qinglang · Account Names” campaign for concentrated complaints	Inaction	Privately “ransoming” accounts
“Verification letter” fee demands	Negative content published unless paid	Preserve messaging and financial evidence + cite Article 8 of the Convention for platform enforcement	Privately paying to settle	Unilaterally characterising as “extortion” publicly
Inaccurate media reporting	Factual discrepancies	Request correction pursuant to Article 1028 of the Civil Code	Directly suing the media	Attacking individual journalists

Governance Toolbox This Month

This Month’s Toolbox: Enterprise Enforcement “Four-Question Stress Test + Project Initiation Review Form”

Before initiating any external enforcement action (especially IP enforcement, enforcement against small/micro counterparties, or enforcement during IPO/sensitive windows), legal counsel shall lead the following item-by-item review:

• Power Asymmetry Question: Is the counterparty a sole proprietor/couple’s shop/vulnerable party? Is it susceptible to being framed as “big bullying small”? (If yes → raise the initiation threshold; assess legal prospects with reference to the fair use defence under Article 59 of the Trademark Law)
• Proportionality Question: Is the amount in dispute proportionate to the harm? Have lighter means such as “letters/negotiation/rectification demands” been exhausted?
• Timing Question: Has space for withdrawal and remediation been preserved? Are the most irreversible actions (litigation, public damages claims) placed last?
• Messaging Question: Have all external communications (including representing counsel) been subjected to online reputation review? Has external messaging been agreed upon with external counsel?
• Rights Self-Examination: Was rights acquisition in good faith? Does the exercise conform to the principle of good faith? (Reference: Article 7 of the Trademark Law, Guiding Case No. 82; avoid abuse of rights)
• Window Check: Is the enterprise in an IPO quiet period, financing, major transaction, or other sensitive window?
• Contingency Plan and Co-Sign-Off: Has a response plan and unified messaging been prepared for the “worst-case online reputation scenario”? Have legal + PR + business co-signed?

Usage instructions: If any of the four questions yields an unsettling answer, suspend initiation or adjust the approach. This form is recommended for embedding in the enterprise enforcement project initiation process, used in conjunction with an “Evidence Preservation Checklist.”

Source List

Title / Legal Provision	Issuing Body	Date	URL	Source Tier	Verified	Supporting Section
Full text of the Self-Regulatory Convention on Rectifying Enterprise-Infringing Information and Optimising the Online Business Environment	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-12	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/mULIcflPzXfdv6MdlkKl4w	C (pending cac.gov.cn original; upgradeable to A)	No	Governance Signal 1 / Counsel’s Prescription
Full text of the Standards for Online Review Activities	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-08	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VPLVMyoSueTLmwQyxN-tQA	C (pending official original)	No	Governance Signal 2 / Legal Risks and Response (Legitimate Oversight)
“Qinglang · Rectifying Account Name and Information Irregularities” special campaign notice	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-18	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jV0JpmBgWXaG906zjrzGpg	C (pending official original)	No	Governance Signal 3
Full text of the Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment (Order No. 24)	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-18	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ypoiNq_5IxGtLw8o9pg9xQ	C (pending official original)	No	Governance Signal 4
Press Q&A on the Measures for Network Data Security Risk Assessment	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-18	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Imf0bYykZNe_IZNMqFOYpA	C (pending official original)	No	Governance Signal 4
Notice on Personal Information Collection and Use Issues in 30 Apps	Wangxin Zhongguo (WeChat/official repost)	2026-06-11	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6lY8jw9fdBDb6sueEkD-4g	C (pending official original)	No	Governance Signal 5
Online Reputation Legal Risks and Responses in Corporate IP Rights Enforcement — The Yu Jian Xiao Mian Case	Dacheng Shanghai Office (WeChat)	2026-06-17	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/V5WyLxJxivUtFXUPAjvPhQ	C (legal analysis)	No	Incident Review / In-Depth Theme
Behind the “Yu Jian Xiao Mian” Online Reputation Storm, the Real Victims Are Emerging	Online Reputation and Crisis PR (WeChat)	2026-06-18	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/C-BajpyrK_ORKagAzcG88w	C	No	Incident Review
Trademark Online Reputation	Analysis of the Yu Jian Xiao Mian vs. Yu Jian Xiao Mian Trademark Dispute	Shiwei Technology (WeChat)	2026-06-16	https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Oc7kty4e05AbEzaJTdp4BQ	C (includes online reputation monitoring data)	No
Guangming Net	“Yu Jian Xiao Mian” Founder Apologises for Suing “Yu Jian Xiao Mian”	Guangming Net	2026-06-15	https://m.gmw.cn/2026-06/15/content_1304496768.htm	B	No
The Paper (citing a report by the Livelihood Channel of Henan Radio and Television)	The Paper	2026-06-15	https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_33380578	B	No	Incident Review (cross-verification)
Civil Code Art. 1024 (reputation rights), Art. 1025 (public oversight exemption), Art. 1028 (media correction), Arts. 1195/1197 (online infringement notice and joint liability), Art. 997 (personality rights injunction)	Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress	Currently effective	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/zxt/statuteDetail/detailPage/55dceb7d83a1c90e3fe9c141b1118193?text=1025	A (legislation)	Yes	Legal Risks and Response / Response Pathway
Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2025 Revision) Art. 12 (commercial disparagement), Art. 28 (penalties), Art. 9 (false reviews)	Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress	Effective 2025-10-15	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/zxt/statuteDetail/detailPage/970d6f3ba30415612a79b44524a3d3cc?text=12	A (legislation)	Yes	Legal Risks and Response (commercial disparagement) / Governance Signal 2
“Online Black Mouth” commercial disparagement and reputation rights case (precedent typical case)	Supreme People’s Court / Xuchang Intermediate People’s Court	2025	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/ydzk/caseDetail/qwcase/a7aa28d91db3add3b0c7671f7ecdd1d1	A (authoritative case database)	No	Legal Risks and Response (commercial disparagement)
Self-media malicious review article infringing enterprise reputation rights case (precedent typical case)	Beijing Internet Court	—	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/ydzk/caseDetail/qwcase/a61d1151d822c980b0ef652628196700	A (authoritative case database)	No	Legal Risks and Response (reputation rights/malicious PR)
Guiding Case No. 82 · Trademark rights abuse constituting abuse of rights (precedent guiding case)	Supreme People’s Court	2014	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/ydzk/caseDetail/qwcase/c5390920f5769755cab1cd2ca7cb670e	A (guiding case)	No	Incident Review / In-Depth Theme / Legal Risks and Response (abuse of rights)
Boundary between legitimate commercial review and commercial disparagement case (Daikexi case, precedent typical case)	Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court	2022	https://ydzk.chineselaw.com/ydzk/caseDetail/qwcase/097f129eef3edabe642b7c513ae4788c	A (authoritative case database)	No	Legal Risks and Response (legitimate oversight) / Governance Signal 2

Disclaimer

This article is intended solely for risk analysis purposes and does not render any determination of illegality or infringement against any party; the merits of individual cases shall be determined by effective judicial decisions.