China’s Supreme Court Redefines Internet Court Jurisdiction: Data Privacy and Personal Information Protection Take Center Stage

Introduction: A Jurisdictional Shift Reflecting Evolving Digital Priorities

On October 1, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court of China implemented a significant
revision to the jurisdictional scope of the nation’s three specialized Internet Courts,
fundamentally reshaping the landscape of digital dispute resolution in China. Through
the issuance of new Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, the Supreme Court removed artificial intelligence-related copyright disputes from Internet Court jurisdiction while simultaneously adding data security and personal information protection disputes to their docket. This jurisdictional recalibration reflects China’s evolving regulatory priorities in the digital economy, elevating data protection and privacy concerns to the forefront of specialized judicial
attention while redirecting AI-related intellectual property matters to traditional court channels.

The timing and substance of these changes carry profound significance for technology
companies, data processors, e-commerce platforms, and other digital economy
participants operating in or connected to China’s market. The removal of AI copyright
jurisdiction comes amid explosive growth in generative AI technologies and increasing
litigation over AI training data, model outputs, and algorithmic creativity. The addition
of data and privacy jurisdiction arrives as China’s comprehensive data protection
framework—anchored by the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), Data
Security Law (DSL), and Cybersecurity Law—matures and enforcement intensifies. For
international law firms advising clients on China digital economy compliance and
dispute resolution, these jurisdictional shifts demand immediate strategic
recalibration.

China’s Internet Courts, established in Hangzhou (2017), Beijing (2018), and
Guangzhou (2018), represent innovative judicial institutions designed to address the
unique characteristics of internet-related disputes through specialized expertise,
streamlined procedures, and advanced technological capabilities. These courts handle
cases entirely online, from filing through hearings to judgment delivery, and have
developed sophisticated capabilities in areas including e-commerce disputes, online
copyright infringement, and internet-related contract matters. The jurisdictional
adjustments reflect the Supreme Court’s assessment of where specialized internet
court expertise can provide the greatest value as China’s digital economy continues its
rapid evolution.

Removal of AI Copyright Jurisdiction: Redirecting Complex IP Matters to Traditional Courts

The Supreme Court’s decision to remove AI-related copyright disputes from Internet
Court jurisdiction represents a significant policy choice with important implications
for the rapidly evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law. Under the previous framework established in 2018, Internet Courts held jurisdiction over “disputes over infringement of copyright ownership and neighboring rights arising from the use of the internet,” a broad category that encompassed AI- related copyright matters as they emerged. The new Provisions explicitly remove this jurisdiction, redirecting such disputes to traditional courts with established
intellectual property expertise.

This jurisdictional shift occurs against the backdrop of explosive growth in AI-
generated content and increasing legal uncertainty about copyright protection for AI outputs. Recent high-profile cases in China have grappled with fundamental questions about whether AI-generated works qualify for copyright protection, who owns rights in such works, and whether training AI models on copyrighted materials constitutes infringement. The complexity of these issues, their novelty in legal doctrine, and their far-reaching implications for the technology sector have evidently led the Supreme
Court to conclude that traditional IP courts, with their deeper expertise in copyright
doctrine and established precedent-setting capabilities, are better positioned to
develop coherent legal frameworks.

The removal of AI copyright jurisdiction from Internet Courts does not eliminate
specialized judicial attention to these matters. Instead, it redirects them to courts with
established intellectual property divisions and judges experienced in complex
copyright doctrine. This approach recognizes that while AI-related disputes arise in
digital contexts, the fundamental legal questions they present—about authorship,
originality, fair use, and the scope of copyright protection—require deep engagement
with traditional IP principles that may exceed Internet Courts’ specialized focus on
internet-specific procedural and evidentiary issues.

For technology companies and content creators engaged in AI development or
utilization, this jurisdictional change creates several practical implications. First,
disputes involving AI-generated content, AI training data usage, or algorithmic
creativity will now be filed in and adjudicated by traditional courts rather than Internet
Courts. This may affect litigation strategy, as traditional courts may employ different
procedural approaches and may lack some of the technological sophistication that
Internet Courts have developed. Second, the change may influence the development
of AI copyright jurisprudence, as traditional courts bring different institutional
perspectives and doctrinal frameworks to these novel issues.

The jurisdictional shift also reflects broader questions about the appropriate
institutional arrangements for addressing AI-related legal issues. As artificial intelligence technologies continue to advance and permeate multiple aspects of economic and social activity, legal systems worldwide are grappling with whether AI- related matters require specialized judicial institutions or can be effectively addressed within existing court structures. China’s decision to route AI copyright disputes to traditional IP courts suggests a preference for leveraging established expertise rather
than developing new specialized capabilities, at least in the copyright domain.

Addition of Data and Privacy Jurisdiction: Elevating Protection to Specialized Court Status

The Supreme Court’s addition of data security and personal information protection
disputes to Internet Court jurisdiction represents the most significant aspect of the
October 2025 reforms and signals China’s determination to provide specialized judicial
attention to data protection matters. The new Provisions explicitly grant Internet
Courts jurisdiction over “disputes over data security and personal information
protection arising from the use of the internet,” creating a dedicated judicial channel
for the growing volume of litigation under China’s comprehensive data protection
framework.

This jurisdictional expansion arrives as China’s data protection legal framework
reaches maturity and enforcement intensifies. The Personal Information Protection
Law, which took effect in November 2021, established comprehensive requirements
for personal information processing, including consent standards, cross-border
transfer restrictions, and individual rights. The Data Security Law, effective September
2021, created a data classification and protection system addressing national security
and public interest concerns. The Cybersecurity Law, implemented in 2017,
established foundational requirements for network operators and critical information
infrastructure. Together, these laws create a robust regulatory framework that has
generated increasing litigation as enforcement mechanisms mature and stakeholders
gain familiarity with their rights and obligations.

The types of disputes now subject to Internet Court jurisdiction span the full spectrum
of data protection controversies. Personal information protection disputes may
involve allegations of unauthorized collection, processing beyond consented
purposes, inadequate security measures leading to data breaches, or violations of
individual rights including access, correction, and deletion. Data security disputes may
address improper handling of important data, violations of data classification requirements, or failures to implement required security measures. Cross-border data transfer disputes may involve challenges to transfer mechanisms, allegations of unauthorized overseas provision of data, or compliance with security assessment requirements.

The assignment of these matters to Internet Courts reflects several strategic
considerations. First, Internet Courts have developed sophisticated technological
capabilities for handling digital evidence, conducting online proceedings, and
understanding internet business models—capabilities directly relevant to data
protection disputes that often involve complex technical evidence about data
processing systems, security measures, and algorithmic decision-making. Second,
Internet Courts’ streamlined procedures and online-first approach align well with the
need for efficient resolution of data disputes, which often require prompt adjudication
to address ongoing privacy violations or security risks.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, concentrating data protection jurisdiction in
specialized Internet Courts enables the development of consistent jurisprudence and
judicial expertise in this rapidly evolving area. As courts interpret and apply China’s
data protection laws to diverse factual scenarios, the accumulation of precedent and
expertise in specialized institutions can promote more predictable and sophisticated
legal development compared to fragmented adjudication across general jurisdiction
courts.

For businesses operating in China’s digital economy, the jurisdictional change creates
both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, Internet Courts’ technological
sophistication and procedural efficiency may enable faster, more informed resolution
of data protection disputes compared to traditional courts less familiar with digital
business models. The development of specialized expertise may also produce more
nuanced and business-aware interpretations of data protection requirements,
potentially reducing legal uncertainty over time.

However, the change also signals that data protection litigation will receive
heightened judicial attention and that Internet Courts will likely develop increasingly
sophisticated approaches to enforcing data protection standards. Companies should
anticipate that Internet Courts will leverage their technological capabilities to conduct
detailed examinations of data processing practices, security measures, and
compliance documentation. They should also expect that Internet Court decisions will
establish important precedents shaping the interpretation and application of China’s
data protection framework.

Strategic Implications for Technology Companies and Digital Platforms

The jurisdictional changes create immediate and significant strategic implications for
technology companies, digital platforms, and other businesses engaged in data
processing or AI development in China. These implications span litigation strategy,
compliance program design, and broader risk management frameworks.

Litigation Strategy and Forum Considerations
For disputes involving AI-related copyright issues, parties must now navigate
traditional court systems rather than Internet Courts. This affects multiple aspects of
litigation planning, including venue selection, procedural strategy, and expert witness
utilization. Traditional courts may require more extensive technical explanation of AI
systems and processes compared to Internet Courts familiar with digital technologies.
Parties should anticipate potentially longer case timelines and should consider how
traditional courts’ institutional characteristics might affect litigation outcomes.
Conversely, for data protection and privacy disputes, parties will now engage with
Internet Courts’ specialized procedures and technological capabilities. Plaintiffs may
find Internet Courts’ streamlined processes and digital evidence handling
advantageous for pursuing data protection claims. Defendants must prepare for courts
that possess sophisticated understanding of data processing technologies and may
conduct detailed technical examinations of compliance measures. Both sides should
leverage Internet Courts’ online capabilities while ensuring that their technical
evidence and arguments are presented effectively in digital formats.

Compliance Program Enhancement
The elevation of data protection disputes to specialized Internet Court jurisdiction
underscores the importance of robust compliance programs addressing China’s data
protection framework. Companies should conduct comprehensive assessments of
their data processing activities against PIPL, DSL, and Cybersecurity Law
requirements, identifying potential vulnerabilities that could give rise to litigation.
They should implement technical and organizational measures designed to prevent
violations, including data minimization practices, security safeguards, consent
management systems, and individual rights response procedures.

Compliance programs should also incorporate mechanisms for documenting
compliance efforts, as Internet Courts’ technological sophistication may enable
detailed examination of companies’ data protection practices. Maintaining
comprehensive records of data processing impact assessments, security measures,
consent collection, and individual rights responses can provide crucial evidence in
defending against allegations of violations. Regular compliance audits and updates to
address evolving regulatory guidance and judicial interpretations should become
standard practice.

Cross-Border Data Transfer Planning
For multinational companies engaged in cross-border data transfers, the jurisdictional
changes heighten the importance of ensuring compliance with China’s transfer
mechanisms. Internet Courts’ specialized focus on data protection matters means that
cross-border transfer disputes will receive expert judicial attention, likely resulting in
rigorous examination of whether transfers comply with applicable requirements
including security assessments, standard contracts, or certification mechanisms.
Companies should conduct thorough reviews of their cross-border data flows,
ensuring that appropriate transfer mechanisms are in place for each category of data
and destination. They should maintain detailed documentation of transfer
compliance, including security assessment approvals, executed standard contracts, or
valid certifications. They should also monitor Internet Court decisions addressing
cross-border transfers to identify emerging interpretations and adjust their practices
accordingly.

AI Development and Content Strategy
For companies engaged in AI development or utilization, the removal of AI copyright
jurisdiction from Internet Courts creates new considerations for IP strategy and risk
management. Companies should anticipate that traditional courts will develop AI
copyright jurisprudence and should monitor emerging decisions to understand
judicial approaches to key issues including AI-generated content ownership, training
data usage, and algorithmic creativity.
Companies should also consider proactive measures to strengthen their IP positions
and reduce litigation risk. This might include implementing robust documentation of
AI development processes, establishing clear contractual arrangements regarding AI- generated content ownership, conducting thorough analysis of training data sources
to ensure appropriate rights, and developing policies for AI content attribution and
disclosure. Engagement with industry associations and policy processes shaping AI
copyright standards can also help companies influence the development of legal
frameworks affecting their operations.

Broader Context: China’s Evolving Digital Governance Framework

The Internet Court jurisdictional changes must be understood within the broader
context of China’s comprehensive digital governance framework, which has evolved
rapidly over the past five years to address the challenges and opportunities presented
by digital economic transformation. This framework encompasses multiple regulatory
dimensions, including data protection, cybersecurity, platform regulation, algorithm
governance, and cross-border data flows, each supported by increasingly
sophisticated legal and institutional arrangements.

The elevation of data protection to specialized Internet Court jurisdiction reflects the
central importance of data governance in China’s digital economy strategy. Data has
been recognized as a key production factor in China’s economic development plans,
and effective data governance is viewed as essential for both enabling data-driven
innovation and protecting individual rights and national security interests. The
specialized judicial attention now directed to data disputes signals that data
protection enforcement will continue to intensify and that businesses must treat data
compliance as a core operational priority rather than a peripheral legal concern.

The jurisdictional changes also reflect China’s approach to institutional innovation in
legal and regulatory domains. Rather than relying solely on traditional institutional
structures, China has demonstrated willingness to create specialized institutions—
including Internet Courts, financial courts, and intellectual property courts—when
specialized expertise and procedures can enhance legal system effectiveness. The
refinement of Internet Court jurisdiction represents ongoing optimization of these
specialized institutions based on experience and evolving priorities.

For international law firms and their clients, understanding these broader governance
trends is essential for effective strategic planning. The jurisdictional changes are not
isolated developments but rather components of a comprehensive and evolving
digital governance framework that will continue to shape business operations in
China. Firms must develop capabilities to track regulatory developments across
multiple domains, understand their interconnections, and provide integrated advice
that addresses the full spectrum of digital economy legal requirements.

Conclusion: Adapting to China’s Specialized Digital Dispute Resolution Landscape

The Supreme People’s Court’s October 2025 revision of Internet Court jurisdiction
marks a significant evolution in China’s approach to digital dispute resolution and
reflects the country’s maturing digital governance framework. By removing AI
copyright matters from Internet Court jurisdiction while adding data protection and
privacy disputes, the Supreme Court has recalibrated specialized judicial resources to
address the most pressing challenges in China’s digital economy. For international law
firms and their clients, these changes demand immediate strategic adaptation and
ongoing attention to the development of jurisprudence in these critical areas.

The immediate priority involves understanding the practical implications of the
jurisdictional changes for dispute resolution planning and litigation strategy.
Companies engaged in AI development must prepare to navigate traditional court
systems for copyright disputes, while those involved in data processing must ready
themselves for specialized Internet Court scrutiny of their protection practices. Legal
advisors must develop expertise in both the substantive law governing these areas and
the procedural characteristics of the respective court systems that will adjudicate
disputes.

Beyond immediate adaptation, the jurisdictional changes signal broader trends that
will shape China’s digital economy legal landscape for years to come. The specialized
attention to data protection reflects its elevation as a core governance priority,
suggesting that enforcement will continue to intensify and that judicial interpretation
will become increasingly sophisticated. The redirection of AI copyright matters to
traditional courts indicates that fundamental IP doctrinal questions will be addressed
through established judicial channels, potentially producing precedents with far-
reaching implications for technology development.

For international law firms, these developments create both challenges and
opportunities. Firms must invest in developing deep expertise in China’s data
protection framework, Internet Court procedures, and the evolving jurisprudence
addressing digital economy disputes. They must build capabilities to provide
integrated advice spanning compliance, litigation, and strategic planning across the
full spectrum of digital governance issues. They must also maintain flexibility to adapt
as China’s digital governance framework continues to evolve in response to
technological change and policy priorities.

The message is clear: China’s approach to digital dispute resolution has entered a new
phase of specialization and sophistication. The jurisdictional changes reflect careful
consideration of where specialized judicial expertise can provide the greatest value
and signal the priorities that will shape enforcement and litigation in the digital
economy. Businesses and their legal advisors must respond with equally sophisticated
strategies, developing the capabilities and insights necessary to navigate this
transformed landscape effectively while positioning themselves for success in China’s
dynamic digital market.

References

[1] National Law Review. (2025, October 8). China’s Supreme People’s Court Strips
Internet Courts of Jurisdiction Over AI Copyright Disputes. https://natlawreview.com/article/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-strips-internet-courts-jurisdiction-over-ai-copyright

[2] Supreme People’s Court of China. (2025, October 1). Provisions on Several Issues
Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts (2025 Revision).

[3] China Law Insight. (2025, October 5). Internet Courts Gain Data Protection
Jurisdiction as AI Copyright Cases Redirected. https://www.chinalawinsight.com