最高法首次发布数据权益司法保护专题指导性案例

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released its first set of guiding cases focused on the judicial protection of data rights, addressing key issues such as data ownership, utilization of data products, personal information protection, and the delivery of online platform accounts [1][2][3]. Group 1: Judicial Protection of Data Rights - The release of the 47th batch of guiding cases marks a significant step in the judicial protection of data rights, responding to societal concerns regarding data ownership and personal information protection [1][2]. - The guiding cases aim to unify the standards for adjudicating similar cases, thereby enhancing the legal framework surrounding data rights [3][5]. Group 2: Growth of Data-Related Cases - The number of data-related cases has significantly increased, with the number of first-instance cases in 2024 being double that of 2021, indicating a growing recognition of data rights in the legal system [3]. - Courts are applying relevant laws such as the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law to effectively handle disputes involving personality rights and property rights related to data [3][5]. Group 3: Specific Guiding Cases - The six guiding cases cover various areas including unfair competition, tort liability, personal information protection, and enforcement [4]. - Case 262 involves a dispute over unfair competition due to data scraping from an online platform, affirming that platform operators can seek legal protection when their business interests are harmed [4][8]. - Case 263 clarifies that providing associated account services with user authorization does not constitute unfair competition if it does not disrupt market order [4][17]. - Case 264 establishes that data processors who collect and process enterprise data without causing harm to the enterprise's rights are not liable for tort [4][25]. - Case 265 addresses the excessive collection of personal information by an app operator, ruling that such actions can infringe on user rights if not necessary for service provision [4][36]. - Case 266 confirms that collecting personal information for credit services under a "pay later" model is necessary for fulfilling contractual obligations [4][46]. Group 4: Future Directions - The Supreme People's Court plans to strengthen the adjudication of data-related cases and further unify judicial standards to promote the compliant and efficient circulation of data, thereby enhancing the value of data elements in the digital economy [5].