Interpretation of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts (Mainland China)

With the further advancement of the digital economy, governance of cyberspace has become an integral component of the modernization of China’s national governance system.  In order to address the judicial demands arising in the digital era, the Supreme People’s Court, on 15 September 2025, deliberated and adopted the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts (hereinafter the “Provisions”), which shall come into force on 1 November 2025.  The promulgation of this judicial interpretation constitutes a significant measure in the functional evolution of Internet courts, marking a shift from merely “innovating adjudicatory mechanisms” to “formulating and exporting regulatory rules for cyberspace governance.”  Building upon the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts issued in 2018, the new Provisions introduce a systematic adjustment and optimization of the jurisdictional scope of Internet courts.  This development will serve to further refine and enhance the judicial framework applicable to internet-related matters.

I. Background and Rationale for the Promulgation of the “Provisions”

The formulation and implementation of the Provisions stem from the practical needs generated by the vigorous development of China’s internet industry and align with the strategic requirements of modernizing the national governance system.  Multiple policy considerations and practical drivers underpin the issuance of these Provisions.

With the deep integration of digital technologies into various sectors of the economy and society, new categories of legal disputes-such as those involving data ownership, virtual property in cyberspace, personal information protection, and unfair competition on online platforms—have emerged in rapid succession.  Traditional courts, when adjudicating such disputes, often confront difficulties including high technical complexity, insufficiently clear legal rules, and inconsistent adjudicatory standards.  In contrast, Internet courts, through long-term specialized adjudication, have accumulated extensive experience and developed strong expertise in handling internet-related cases.  To address the growing demand for resolving new forms of online disputes, to promote the innovative adjudication model of “online disputes adjudicated online,” and to explore litigation rules suited to the needs of the internet era, the Provisions were promulgated.  They aim to advance the rule-of-law governance of cyberspace through the adjudication of various new types of internet-related cases.

II. Interpretation of the Main Provisions

The Provisions consist of four articles that systematically adjust the jurisdictional scope of Internet courts.  They introduce four new categories of cases, remove five categories, retain four categories, and further clarify the rules on jurisdiction by agreement and the appellate review mechanism.

A. Expansion of Jurisdiction: Focusing on New Types of Digital Rights

Article 1 of the Provisions adds four categories of cases subject to the centralized jurisdiction of Internet courts, reflecting the judiciary’s heightened attention to the protection of emerging rights in the digital era.  First, disputes concerning the ownership, infringement, and contractual relations associated with data in cyberspace.  As data has become a new factor of production, the delineation of data ownership and the protection of data-related rights form the institutional foundation of the digital economy.  Such disputes involve multiple stages of data collection, sharing, trading, and use, including issues such as the allocation of proprietary interests in data, unfair competition through data scraping, and breaches of data-related contracts.  Bringing such disputes within the jurisdiction of Internet courts enables the judiciary to clarify the boundaries of data rights through specialized adjudication, thereby contributing judicial experience to the development of a data property rights system.  Second, disputes involving the protection of personal information and the right to privacy online.  Following the promulgation of the Personal Information Protection Law, the need for judicial protection of personal information has become increasingly prominent.  These disputes concern the legality of collecting, using, processing, and transferring personal information, as well as determining liability for infringements of the right to privacy.  Centralized adjudication by Internet courts helps unify adjudicatory standards and appropriately balance personal information protection with the rational use of data.  Third, disputes concerning the ownership, infringement, and contractual issues related to virtual property in cyberspace.  Virtual property-such as online game items, virtual currencies, and digital collectibles-constitutes a form of digital asset whose legal nature and protection mechanisms have long been debated in both theory and practice.  By concentrating jurisdiction over such disputes, Internet courts can progressively develop judicial rules for the protection of virtual property, thereby responding to the diversification of property forms in the digital era.  Fourth, disputes involving unfair competition in the online environment.  Competitive behavior in platform-based markets is often complex, concealed, and technologically sophisticated.  Internet courts, equipped with an informed understanding of technological contexts and business models, are better positioned to accurately determine the lawful boundaries of competitive conduct.

B. Removal of Certain Jurisdictional Categories: Optimizing the Allocation of Judicial Resources

The Provisions remove five categories of cases from the jurisdiction of Internet courts, reflecting a functional division whereby “general and traditional internet-related disputes are adjudicated by other primary-level courts, while new, cutting-edge, and complex internet-related disputes are concentrated in Internet courts.”

The removed categories include: (1) disputes arising from financial loan contracts and small-amount loan contracts where both the formation and performance of the contract occur entirely online; (2) disputes concerning copyright or neighboring rights in works first published on the internet; (3) disputes arising from infringements of copyright or neighboring rights committed through publishing or disseminating works online; (4) product liability disputes arising from product defects that cause personal injury or property damage, where the product was purchased via an e-commerce platform; and (5) traditional online tort disputes involving infringements of personal rights or property rights committed on the internet.

The primary reasons for removing these categories from the jurisdiction of Internet courts are twofold.  First, although these disputes arise in cyberspace, the underlying legal rules have become relatively mature, and unified adjudicatory standards have largely been established; as such, they no longer require specialized exploration by Internet courts.  Second, these cases occur in large and rapidly increasing volumes, consuming significant judicial resources and thereby hindering Internet courts from fulfilling their core mandate of adjudicating novel and complex internet-related disputes.  Following the adjustment, these cases will be accepted by the relevant primary-level courts in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction rules under the Civil Procedure Law.  Among them, online copyright cases will continue to be heard by the specialized courts with centralized jurisdiction within their respective territorial scopes.

C. Retained Jurisdictional Categories: Preserving the Advantages of Specialized Adjudication

The Provisions retain four categories of cases within the jurisdiction of Internet courts, reflecting a continued recognition of the need for specialized adjudication in these areas.

The retained categories include: (1) disputes concerning the ownership, infringement, or contractual relations involving internet domain names; (2) disputes arising from the formation or performance of online shopping contracts concluded through e-commerce platforms; (3) disputes involving online service contracts where both the formation and performance of the contract occur online; and (4) public interest litigation cases filed by procuratorates involving online-related matters.  These categories remain under the jurisdiction of Internet courts because they continue to present significant professional adjudicatory demands.  For instance, disputes involving internet domain names raise issues regarding the determination of rights, infringement analysis, and conflicts of international jurisdiction-matters that still require the expertise and specialized judgment of Internet courts.  Similarly, disputes arising from online shopping and online service contracts, as typical categories of “online disputes adjudicated online,” are appropriately kept within the centralized jurisdiction of Internet courts so as to consolidate and further refine online adjudication mechanisms.

D. Administrative Cases and Cases Involving Foreign, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan Elements: Adjusted in Parallel

The Provisions also revise the jurisdiction over administrative cases and cases involving foreign, Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan elements in coordination with the adjustments made to civil case jurisdiction.

With respect to administrative cases, Internet courts exercise centralized jurisdiction over disputes arising from administrative actions taken by government agencies in relation to: regulation of online data; protection of personal information online; regulation of unfair competition on the internet; supervision of online transactions; and administration of online information services.

This centralized jurisdiction enables Internet courts to better support and supervise administrative law enforcement in cyberspace, promote the uniform application of administrative and judicial standards, and enhance the overall system of integrated cyberspace governance.  With respect to cases involving foreign, Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan elements, Internet courts exercise centralized jurisdiction over civil disputes falling within the categories set out in Article 1 that involve foreign parties or parties from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region, or Taiwan.  This arrangement helps leverage the specialized expertise of Internet courts to “develop and refine adjudicatory rules with precedential value in the international arena,” thereby supporting China’s deeper judicial participation in shaping the evolving global governance system for cyberspace.

E. Jurisdiction by Agreement and the Appellate Mechanism

Articles 2 and 3 of the Provisions respectively clarify the rules governing jurisdiction by agreement and the appellate review mechanism.  For contractual disputes and other property-related disputes falling within the scope of Article 1, the parties may, in accordance with the law, agree to submit the dispute to an Internet court located in a place that has a substantial connection with the dispute.  This rule respects the parties’ autonomy of will while preventing abuse of jurisdictional choice through the requirement of a “substantial connection.”  With respect to the appellate mechanism, appeals against judgments or rulings rendered by Internet courts shall be heard by the intermediate people’s court located in the same jurisdiction as the Internet court.  This ensures the orderly functioning of the appellate review process.

III. Conclusion

The Provisions (Fa Shi [2025] No. 14), building upon the institutional foundation established in 2018, introduce structural refinements and systematic upgrades addressing the emerging needs of internet governance, data regulation, and the platform economy.  The critical challenge ahead lies in their implementation-particularly in boundary delineation, resource allocation, procedural safeguards, and cross-regional coordination.  If supported by a comprehensive auxiliary framework-including institutional design, technological infrastructure, coordination mechanisms, and evaluation systems-Internet courts will play an increasingly essential role in ensuring judicial protection in the digital era.  They will be positioned to deliver convenient, fair, and efficient judicial services that contribute meaningfully to the rule-of-law governance of cyberspace.