互联网法院“功能重塑”，透露哪些信号

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses significant changes in the jurisdiction of internet courts in China, effective from November 1, focusing on complex cases while removing simpler, repetitive cases from their purview [3][5]. Summary by Sections Changes in Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court has issued new regulations that expand the jurisdiction of internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou to include four new types of cases: "network data," "personal information protection and privacy," "virtual property," and "unfair competition disputes" [3][5]. - Simultaneously, it removes simpler cases such as "financial loans," "small loan contract disputes," and certain "copyright disputes" from its jurisdiction, addressing the issue of overwhelming simple cases that consume judicial resources [3][5][6]. Historical Context and Issues - Initially, internet courts were established to explore online litigation rules, but the effectiveness of this mission has diminished as many courts can now conduct online hearings [6][10]. - The Beijing Internet Court reported handling 194,000 cases from its establishment in 2018 to July 2023, with a high concentration of simple cases, leading to a "case overload" issue [6][10]. Strategic Repositioning - Experts suggest that the recent adjustments are not merely minor tweaks but a strategic reconfiguration of the internet courts' functions, aiming to focus on complex and emerging digital economy-related disputes [6][9]. - The article emphasizes the need for dynamic adjustments in jurisdiction based on the maturity of case types and the necessity for rule exploration in new areas [7][9]. Future Directions - The internet courts are expected to evolve into "rule incubators" for governance in the digital space, addressing issues like data rights, platform economy, and algorithm governance [14][15]. - There is a call for establishing judicial review standards for platform rules, ensuring fairness and transparency in algorithmic decision-making [15][16]. - The article highlights the importance of maintaining judicial integrity while innovating procedural rules, ensuring that the rights of parties involved are not diminished [16].