Core Viewpoint - The recent adjustments to the jurisdiction of internet courts in China reflect a strategic transformation aimed at addressing the challenges of handling simple and repetitive cases, thereby allowing courts to focus on more complex and emerging legal issues in the digital economy [1][5][9] Summary by Sections Jurisdiction Changes - The Supreme Court has announced significant changes to the jurisdiction of internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou, adding four new categories of cases while removing simpler ones, such as financial loan disputes and certain copyright cases [1][2] - The new categories include "network data," "personal information protection and privacy," "virtual property," and "unfair competition disputes," indicating a shift towards more complex legal matters [1][2] Historical Context - Initially, internet courts were established to explore online litigation rules, but the effectiveness of this mission has diminished as traditional courts have also adopted online procedures [2][6] - The previous jurisdiction led to an overwhelming number of simple and repetitive cases, straining judicial resources and limiting the ability to address more complex issues [3][5] Challenges and Opportunities - The "case overload" issue has highlighted the need for a reallocation of judicial resources to focus on new and complex internet-related disputes, such as data misuse and algorithm discrimination [5][9] - Scholars suggest that the jurisdiction of internet courts should be dynamically adjusted based on the maturity of legal rules for different case types [5][9] Future Directions - The internet courts are expected to evolve into specialized entities that can effectively address new legal challenges in areas like data rights, platform economy, and artificial intelligence [9][10] - There is a call for the establishment of judicial review standards for platform rules, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches based on the nature of the rules being examined [10][11] - The courts must balance innovation in procedural rules with the protection of litigants' rights and the integrity of the legal system [11]