On October 10, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts (最高人民法院关于互联网法院案件管辖的规定) effective November 1, 2025. The 2025 Provisions amend the 2018 Provisions by removing Internet Courts’ jurisdiction over five types of cases including “copyright or neighboring rights disputes involving works first published online,” and “disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights in works published or disseminated online.” The SPC explained that this will ensure “new, cutting-edge, and complex online cases are heard by the Internet Courts” while “general and traditional online cases are heard by other local courts.”
The Beijing Internet Court in particular has been a leader in copyright jurisprudence for generative artificial intelligence including Li v. Liu that recognized copyright for images created using generative AI and the Cat Crystal Diamond Pendant case that determined the amount of creativity required in generative AI cases to claim copyright but perhaps the SPC believes the law is settled and these cases are no longer cutting edge.
Three other areas removed from Internet Court jurisdiction include “financial loan contract disputes and small loan contract disputes where the execution and performance of the contracts are all completed online,” “product liability disputes arising from defects in products purchased through e-commerce platforms that infringe upon the personal and property rights of others” and “traditional online infringement disputes such as online infringement of reputation rights, general personality rights, and property rights.”
Internet Courts will have jurisdiction over four new areas including “online data ownership, infringement, and contract disputes,” “online personal information protection and privacy disputes,” “online virtual property ownership, infringement, and contract disputes,” and “online unfair competition disputes.”
Internet Courts will retain jurisdiction over the following four categories: “Internet domain name ownership, infringement, and contract disputes,” “disputes arising from the signing or performance of online shopping contracts through e-commerce platforms,” ”Internet service contract disputes where the signing and performance are completed online,” and “online public interest litigation cases initiated by the procuratorate.”
A translation of the Provisions follows. Due to geoblocking of the SPC website, the original Provisions and SPC explanation are available on social media here (Chinese only).
Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts
( Adopted at the 1957th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on September 15 , 2025 , and effective November 1 , 2025 )
These Regulations are formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant provisions, and in light of the actual circumstances of adjudication work, in order to strengthen the development of internet courts, optimize and improve their jurisdiction, further leverage their functions and roles in facilitating and benefiting the people, resolving disputes fairly, efficiently, and conveniently, strengthening the law-based governance of cyberspace, and serving to safeguard the healthy development of the digital economy.
Article 1: Internet courts shall have centralized jurisdiction over the following first instance cases within their respective municipal districts that should be accepted by basic level people’s courts:
(1) Network data ownership, infringement, and contract disputes;
(2) Disputes concerning the protection of personal information and privacy rights on the Internet;
(3) Disputes regarding online virtual property ownership, infringement, and contracts;
(4) Disputes involving unfair competition on the Internet;
(5) Internet domain name ownership, infringement, and contract disputes;
(6) Disputes arising from the signing or performance of online shopping contracts through e-commerce platforms;
(7) Disputes over network service contracts where the signing and performance are completed online;
(8) Administrative disputes arising from administrative actions taken by administrative agencies, such as those regarding network data supervision, network personal information protection supervision, network unfair competition supervision, network transaction management, and network information service management;
(9) Internet public interest litigation cases initiated by the procuratorate.
Foreign-related civil cases that meet the requirements of the preceding paragraph, as well as civil cases involving the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions and Taiwan, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Internet Courts.
With the approval of the Supreme People’s Court, relevant high people’s courts may designate Internet courts to have jurisdiction over other specific types of online civil and administrative cases.
Article 2: For civil disputes over contracts and other property rights as defined in Article 1 of these Provisions, the parties may legally agree upon the jurisdiction of an Internet Court located in a location that has a physical connection to the dispute.
Where parties agree in the form of standard clauses that a case is under the jurisdiction of an Internet Court, such agreement shall comply with the provisions of laws and judicial interpretations on standard clauses.
Article 3: Cases where parties appeal judgments or rulings rendered by Internet Courts shall be heard by the Intermediate People’s Court in the location of the Internet Court. Where multiple Intermediate People’s Courts exist in a location, the case shall be heard by an Intermediate People’s Court designated by a Higher People’s Court.
If the appeal case falls within the jurisdiction of a specialized people’s court, it shall be heard by the corresponding specialized people’s court.
Article 4: These Provisions shall come into force on November 1, 2025. Cases already accepted before the implementation of these Provisions shall continue to be heard by the original people’s courts that accepted the cases.
In case of any inconsistency between previously issued judicial interpretations and these Provisions, these Provisions shall prevail.