China’s internet courts are hearing cases on human rights violations caused by artificial intelligence
AI technologies are advancing faster than the law, but China’s judicial system has already begun building case law to protect citizens from digital threats. Deepfakes, voice cloning, algorithmic discrimination, and AI “hallucinations” are increasingly becoming subjects of litigation. New guiding principles from the Supreme People’s Court equip courts with the tools to resolve such disputes fairly.
The guiding principles, issued by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), address a range of emerging disputes, including deepfakes and AI‑based voice cloning, algorithmic price discrimination, and false information generated by AI. They clearly state that no one may use AI to create or disseminate identifiable digital replicas of others without their consent – including cloned faces and voices. Such use constitutes a violation of human rights, and using AI‑generated faces or voices to spread false claims or damage a person’s reputation may also incur legal liability.
China has already handled such cases in court. In April 2024, the Beijing Internet Court, in the country’s first case involving infringement of rights through AI‑generated voice, ruled that using AI to recreate a person’s identifiable voice without consent could violate their rights. The new rules come as AI‑generated fake images become easier to produce and harder to distinguish from authentic content. A few photographs or a short voice recording can provide enough material to create a convincing digital copy.
The guidelines also tackle algorithmic discrimination against consumers. Companies that use algorithms to offer different prices or other terms for the same goods or services without reasonable justification may be held liable if the practice harms consumers. Another concern is that generative AI systems can create false or inaccurate information – commonly known as “AI hallucinations”. AI service providers may be held liable if they are notified that their systems have generated content infringing on human rights but fail to take timely action. Users can also be held responsible for how they use AI. Anyone who deliberately uses prompts or other methods to induce an AI system to create content that violates human rights and causes harm to others may be held accountable.
The guidelines also allow for rapid judicial protection when AI‑generated content threatens serious and irreversible harm. For example, a person whose face has been digitally altered and used to spread false and defamatory statements of a sexual nature may seek a court injunction if a delay in action could cause harm that would be difficult to remedy later.
As reported by CCTV+, these guidelines complement China’s evolving legal framework on AI. In September 2025, measures on labelling AI‑synthesised content came into effect, and courts now have clear guidance for handling disputes over deepfakes, algorithmic discrimination, and the liability of both providers and users of AI.
