Case Summary
This case concerns a practicing lawyer who sued a technology company, the operator of “Mr Law”, a platform that accumulate professional information about lawyers nationwide, for unauthorised use and fabrication of his personal and professional information on their website (https://faxiansheng.com) and WeChat “mini-programme”（“法先生法律大数据”). The plaintiff challenged the practices of falsely listing him as a platform-certified lawyer and providing inaccurate data about their practice and success rates for promotional purposes. Mr Law claimed that the information was publicly available and used for legitimate business purposes.
The GuangZhou internet court held that “Mr Law’s ‘use’ of personal information “exceeded reasonable bounds” . Both the collection and (false) generation of personal information about the plaintiff, including a user profile and inaccurate data about his professional experiences, constituted an act of automated decision-making per Art 24 PIPL. As Mr Law has failed to ensure transparency and fairness in its ADM processes, the two major requirements as remedies to ADM (in case without a significant effect), the court found that Mr Law has violated the plaintiff’s personal information interests (as personal information protection is considered neither a civil or constitutional or fundamental right in China). The Court ordered the defendant to apologise to the plaintiff through its WeChat public account, the content of which is subject to court review, for at least 10 days. Mr Law shall also compensate for the plaintiff’s economic losses of ¥3000 RMB (approximately €383). Mai’s other claims, including for emotional damages, were dismissed.
Automated decision-making is defined under Art 73(2) PIPL as ‘activities of automatically analysing and evaluating, through computer programmes, an individual’s behavioural habits, interests, hobbies, economic status, health conditions and creditability, and making decisions on that basis. A primary difference between PIPL and the EU GDPR is that ADM is not conceptualised as a data subject right, and Art 24 PIPL provides remedies (e.g. requiring transparency, outcome fairness and a broad restriction on personalised pricing or transacting conditions) regardless of whether the ADM would exert a legal or similarly significant effect. Art 24 is ostensibly influenced by the DSA as it requires that, in cases where ADM is used for “information pushing “or marketing, an option not based on profiling or one of opting out should be provided. It is when the ADM exerts a significant impact that an individual is entitled to request an explanation and to refuse to a decision that is made solely in an automated manner. Additionally, DPIA is considered necessary before undertaking ADM of various kinds.
This case marks the first instance of automated decision-making being adjudicated in one of China’s major internet courts. While neither party chose to appeal, ‘Mr. Law’ is involved in several lawsuits across different courts, with this case being the first of many still awaiting judgments.
Access to the full judgment
Further notes on contested technology
- → Solely Automated-Decision
- → The technology is deployed
Author of the case note
