China Releases Draft Guidelines for Trial of Data Property Rights Registration
Published 8 April 2026
Xia Yu
On 3 April 2026, the National Data Administration of China released its drafted Data Property Rights Registration Work Guidelines (Trial) (Exposure Draft) (“Draft Guidelines”) for public comment until 19 April 2026. The release of the Draft Guidelines marks a critical step in China’s process of establishing a unified national data property rights system and cultivating an integrated national data market.
Overview of the Draft Guidelines
The Draft Guidelines consists of six chapters and 42 articles, systematically establishing a full-chain rule system covering registration body admission, registration procedures, registration types, and legal liability. The Draft Guidelines clarifies that data property rights include three categories of proprietary rights: “data holding rights, data use rights, and data operation rights”. It defines data property rights registration as the act by which a registration body examines the description, source, and content of rights of data and issues a certificate. The national data administration department is responsible for top-level design, while provincial departments are responsible for territorial management. A registration body must be recommended by the provincial level, selected by the national level, and included in the national unified catalogue. It must have a paid-in registered capital of no less than RMB 100 million (approximately US$ 13.8 million) and complete Class 3 or above filing for cybersecurity protection of its information system.
The registration procedure follows a seven-step process: application, acceptance, examination, public notice, objection handling, information deposit certification, and certificate issuance. The examination focuses on the accuracy of data description, the compliance of data sources, and the clarity of data property rights. The public notice period is five working days. Registration is completed after the registration information is deposited and certified on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service Platform (“National Platform”). The certificate is generally valid for no more than five years, and renewal may be applied for six months before expiry.
The registration body is liable for the accuracy of the registration result. If an error is caused by intent or gross negligence, the body may be suspended from practice, removed from the catalogue, and held liable for compensation. An applicant who obtains registration by deceptive means shall bear civil or even criminal liability.
The Draft Guidelines also includes six annexes providing a sample registration certificate, coding rules, and template application forms for various types of registration.
Evidentiary and Circulatory Functions of the Data Property Rights Registration Certificate
Article 31 of the Draft Guidelines clarifies that the data property rights registration certificate (“Registration Certificate”) may serve as proof of ownership and content of data property rights, including: proof of data property rights in data transactions; proof of lawful holding or control of data in activities such as data entry into balance sheets, financing, and equity contributions; evidence of ownership determination in data-related disputes and resolution; and proof for assessing an enterprise’s data situation in data enterprise cultivation and recognition policies.
These provisions indicate that the Registration Certificate has not only evidentiary functions but also circulatory functions – a practically valuable design. For a long time, the difficulty of “determining rights” in data has directly led to difficulties in “entry into balance sheets”, “financing”, and “transactions”. The introduction of the Registration Certificate is equivalent to issuing a “title certificate” for data assets.
It is worth noting that the Registration Certificate is only “prima facie evidence” and not an irrefutable final proof of rights. Courts and arbitral institutions may still make different determinations based on substantive disputes. Second, in case of inconsistency between the content of the Registration Certificate and the information deposited on the National Platform, the latter shall prevail – the deposit record on the National Platform has ultimate effect. In addition, to reduce market transaction costs, data circulation service providers are required not to conduct duplicate reviews or charge duplicate fees without justifiable reasons.
Reasonable Examination of Data Description, Source and Property Rights
The Draft Guidelines sets out detailed examination standards for the accuracy of data description, the compliance of data sources, and the clarity of data property rights. When examining the accuracy of data description, the focus is on whether the data name is concise, accurate and unambiguous. In principle, the data name should include time, region, industry, content, data type, etc.
When examining the compliance of data sources, the following requirements reflect the core logic of “compliance as entitlement”: 1. For data collected and generated: whether the collection act is lawful.2. For data obtained by agreement: whether the agreement stipulates ownership of property rights.3. For public data collected through automated programs: whether the registered data is public data, and whether the means and methods of collection are lawful and compliant.4. For derivatively created data: (1) whether the applicant enjoys the use right to the original data; (2) whether the relevant agreement stipulates ownership of the derivative data; if not, whether there is a substantial material difference in content, form, structure, etc. from the original data, and whether the value is significantly higher than that of the original data.5. For personal information or important data: whether the acquisition complies with the Personal Information Protection Law of China or the Data Security Law of China.
When examining the clarity of data property rights, the Draft Guidelines lists seven typical scenarios to illustrate “who can register what rights”. Under the Draft Guidelines, data generated by one’s own production and operation, lawfully authorized data, and data lawfully collected by individuals can all be registered with all three rights (holding, use, operation). For public data collected by crawling, only holding and use rights can be registered initially; operation rights may be added only if the crawler does not substantively substitute the original platform’s products or services. In multi-party cooperation without agreement, each participant may register holding and use rights, and operation rights require unanimous consent. Derivative data created through substantial processing, material changes, and significant value enhancement based on authorized data may enjoy all three rights. A party entrusted to process data may under no circumstances register any rights. Notably, holding rights, use rights, and operation rights are independent of each other, and the same right in the same data may be simultaneously held by multiple persons without mutual exclusivity.
Initial Registration as the Foundation
The Draft Guidelines classifies registration types into initial registration, transfer registration, change registration, renewal registration, and cancellation registration. Initial registration is the foundation – only after completing initial registration may other types of registration be processed. Subsequent registrations are in principle handled by the same body. Transfer registration requires a joint application by the transferor and the transferee, and the certificate must be adjusted after examination. Change registration is limited to two situations: change of applicant identity information, and change or error in “data description information, data time span, etc.” Renewal registration must be applied for within six months before expiry of the validity period; the certificate automatically lapses if renewal is not applied for before expiry. Registration may be cancelled upon application, or based on objection results or legal provisions.
The provisions on registration types draw on the logic of traditional real right registration. Given the unique characteristics of data assets, this logic still faces certain challenges. Data has features such as non-exclusivity, repeated transferability, and derivative variability. For example, the same data set may have multiple rights holders simultaneously holding different rights (holding, use, operation). Article 21 of the Draft Guidelines explicitly provides that “different right holders may simultaneously enjoy the same right without mutual exclusivity”. However, the Draft Guidelines does not provide specific solutions to issues such as how to avoid conflicts of rights in transfer registration or how to prevent multiple sales of the same right. Moreover, for the data holding, use and operation rights enjoyed, transfer registration requires that the transferor no longer retain the whole or part of the rights transferred. If the transfer is of all rights, this provision reflects a “transfer of rights” rather than a “license” positioning. If only part of the rights (use rights and/or operation rights) is transferred, whether the original right holder can truly “no longer retain” them may be difficult to monitor in practice.
International Comparison
The release of the Draft Guidelines indicates that China has already taken the lead globally in the specific system of data property rights registration. To date, no other country or region has established a nationally unified data property rights registration system centered on the “registration certificate”. However, this does not mean that other countries have not explored mechanisms for data rights determination or data governance.
The EU focus on data access and portability rights, rather than registration. Through European Data Governance Act and Data Act, the EU has established rules such as “data intermediation”, “data altruism” and “business-to-business data sharing”. The core rationale is to facilitate data circulation by granting users/enterprises data access and portability rights (derived from Article 20 of the General Data Protection Regulation rather than creating an ex ante public notice system of rights registration. The EU focuses more on “use” than on “ownership”.
The US has no federal-level data property rights registration system. Data rights rely primarily on contracts (Terms of Service), trade secret law, and various state privacy laws. In judicial practice, disputes over data ownership are usually resolved through contract interpretation or the principle of anti-unfair competition. The US tends to favor market autonomy and ex post remedies.
In 2018, Japan amended its Unfair Competition Prevention Act and introduced the concept of “limitedly provided data”, which prohibits unauthorized acquisition, use or disclosure. This is a path of protection through anti-unfair competition rules, rather than a positive rights registration system.
Singapore has promoted data trust models in areas such as finance and health, where a trustee manages data access and usage rights, but it has likewise not established a national data property rights register.
Conclusion
The Draft Guidelines is a well-structured, clearly positioned, and highly operable data property rights registration system. For the first time at the national level, it systematically answers core questions such as “who registers, how to register, what to register, and what legal effect registration has”, providing infrastructure-level support for the determination, circulation and financing of data property rights. From an international comparative perspective, China is the first country in the world to attempt to establish a unified national data property rights registration system. The Draft Guidelines seeks to provide a low-cost, predictable mechanism of public notice and reliance for data rights determination by means of “registration + certificate”. This is pioneering on a global scale.
Overview of the Draft Guidelines
The Draft Guidelines consists of six chapters and 42 articles, systematically establishing a full-chain rule system covering registration body admission, registration procedures, registration types, and legal liability. The Draft Guidelines clarifies that data property rights include three categories of proprietary rights: “data holding rights, data use rights, and data operation rights”. It defines data property rights registration as the act by which a registration body examines the description, source, and content of rights of data and issues a certificate. The national data administration department is responsible for top-level design, while provincial departments are responsible for territorial management. A registration body must be recommended by the provincial level, selected by the national level, and included in the national unified catalogue. It must have a paid-in registered capital of no less than RMB 100 million (approximately US$ 13.8 million) and complete Class 3 or above filing for cybersecurity protection of its information system.
The registration procedure follows a seven-step process: application, acceptance, examination, public notice, objection handling, information deposit certification, and certificate issuance. The examination focuses on the accuracy of data description, the compliance of data sources, and the clarity of data property rights. The public notice period is five working days. Registration is completed after the registration information is deposited and certified on the National Data Property Rights Registration Service Platform (“National Platform”). The certificate is generally valid for no more than five years, and renewal may be applied for six months before expiry.
The registration body is liable for the accuracy of the registration result. If an error is caused by intent or gross negligence, the body may be suspended from practice, removed from the catalogue, and held liable for compensation. An applicant who obtains registration by deceptive means shall bear civil or even criminal liability.
The Draft Guidelines also includes six annexes providing a sample registration certificate, coding rules, and template application forms for various types of registration.
Evidentiary and Circulatory Functions of the Data Property Rights Registration Certificate
Article 31 of the Draft Guidelines clarifies that the data property rights registration certificate (“Registration Certificate”) may serve as proof of ownership and content of data property rights, including: proof of data property rights in data transactions; proof of lawful holding or control of data in activities such as data entry into balance sheets, financing, and equity contributions; evidence of ownership determination in data-related disputes and resolution; and proof for assessing an enterprise’s data situation in data enterprise cultivation and recognition policies.
These provisions indicate that the Registration Certificate has not only evidentiary functions but also circulatory functions – a practically valuable design. For a long time, the difficulty of “determining rights” in data has directly led to difficulties in “entry into balance sheets”, “financing”, and “transactions”. The introduction of the Registration Certificate is equivalent to issuing a “title certificate” for data assets.
It is worth noting that the Registration Certificate is only “prima facie evidence” and not an irrefutable final proof of rights. Courts and arbitral institutions may still make different determinations based on substantive disputes. Second, in case of inconsistency between the content of the Registration Certificate and the information deposited on the National Platform, the latter shall prevail – the deposit record on the National Platform has ultimate effect. In addition, to reduce market transaction costs, data circulation service providers are required not to conduct duplicate reviews or charge duplicate fees without justifiable reasons.
Reasonable Examination of Data Description, Source and Property Rights
The Draft Guidelines sets out detailed examination standards for the accuracy of data description, the compliance of data sources, and the clarity of data property rights. When examining the accuracy of data description, the focus is on whether the data name is concise, accurate and unambiguous. In principle, the data name should include time, region, industry, content, data type, etc.
When examining the compliance of data sources, the following requirements reflect the core logic of “compliance as entitlement”: 1. For data collected and generated: whether the collection act is lawful.2. For data obtained by agreement: whether the agreement stipulates ownership of property rights.3. For public data collected through automated programs: whether the registered data is public data, and whether the means and methods of collection are lawful and compliant.4. For derivatively created data: (1) whether the applicant enjoys the use right to the original data; (2) whether the relevant agreement stipulates ownership of the derivative data; if not, whether there is a substantial material difference in content, form, structure, etc. from the original data, and whether the value is significantly higher than that of the original data.5. For personal information or important data: whether the acquisition complies with the Personal Information Protection Law of China or the Data Security Law of China.
When examining the clarity of data property rights, the Draft Guidelines lists seven typical scenarios to illustrate “who can register what rights”. Under the Draft Guidelines, data generated by one’s own production and operation, lawfully authorized data, and data lawfully collected by individuals can all be registered with all three rights (holding, use, operation). For public data collected by crawling, only holding and use rights can be registered initially; operation rights may be added only if the crawler does not substantively substitute the original platform’s products or services. In multi-party cooperation without agreement, each participant may register holding and use rights, and operation rights require unanimous consent. Derivative data created through substantial processing, material changes, and significant value enhancement based on authorized data may enjoy all three rights. A party entrusted to process data may under no circumstances register any rights. Notably, holding rights, use rights, and operation rights are independent of each other, and the same right in the same data may be simultaneously held by multiple persons without mutual exclusivity.
Initial Registration as the Foundation
The Draft Guidelines classifies registration types into initial registration, transfer registration, change registration, renewal registration, and cancellation registration. Initial registration is the foundation – only after completing initial registration may other types of registration be processed. Subsequent registrations are in principle handled by the same body. Transfer registration requires a joint application by the transferor and the transferee, and the certificate must be adjusted after examination. Change registration is limited to two situations: change of applicant identity information, and change or error in “data description information, data time span, etc.” Renewal registration must be applied for within six months before expiry of the validity period; the certificate automatically lapses if renewal is not applied for before expiry. Registration may be cancelled upon application, or based on objection results or legal provisions.
The provisions on registration types draw on the logic of traditional real right registration. Given the unique characteristics of data assets, this logic still faces certain challenges. Data has features such as non-exclusivity, repeated transferability, and derivative variability. For example, the same data set may have multiple rights holders simultaneously holding different rights (holding, use, operation). Article 21 of the Draft Guidelines explicitly provides that “different right holders may simultaneously enjoy the same right without mutual exclusivity”. However, the Draft Guidelines does not provide specific solutions to issues such as how to avoid conflicts of rights in transfer registration or how to prevent multiple sales of the same right. Moreover, for the data holding, use and operation rights enjoyed, transfer registration requires that the transferor no longer retain the whole or part of the rights transferred. If the transfer is of all rights, this provision reflects a “transfer of rights” rather than a “license” positioning. If only part of the rights (use rights and/or operation rights) is transferred, whether the original right holder can truly “no longer retain” them may be difficult to monitor in practice.
International Comparison
The release of the Draft Guidelines indicates that China has already taken the lead globally in the specific system of data property rights registration. To date, no other country or region has established a nationally unified data property rights registration system centered on the “registration certificate”. However, this does not mean that other countries have not explored mechanisms for data rights determination or data governance.
The EU focus on data access and portability rights, rather than registration. Through European Data Governance Act and Data Act, the EU has established rules such as “data intermediation”, “data altruism” and “business-to-business data sharing”. The core rationale is to facilitate data circulation by granting users/enterprises data access and portability rights (derived from Article 20 of the General Data Protection Regulation rather than creating an ex ante public notice system of rights registration. The EU focuses more on “use” than on “ownership”.
The US has no federal-level data property rights registration system. Data rights rely primarily on contracts (Terms of Service), trade secret law, and various state privacy laws. In judicial practice, disputes over data ownership are usually resolved through contract interpretation or the principle of anti-unfair competition. The US tends to favor market autonomy and ex post remedies.
In 2018, Japan amended its Unfair Competition Prevention Act and introduced the concept of “limitedly provided data”, which prohibits unauthorized acquisition, use or disclosure. This is a path of protection through anti-unfair competition rules, rather than a positive rights registration system.
Singapore has promoted data trust models in areas such as finance and health, where a trustee manages data access and usage rights, but it has likewise not established a national data property rights register.
Conclusion
The Draft Guidelines is a well-structured, clearly positioned, and highly operable data property rights registration system. For the first time at the national level, it systematically answers core questions such as “who registers, how to register, what to register, and what legal effect registration has”, providing infrastructure-level support for the determination, circulation and financing of data property rights. From an international comparative perspective, China is the first country in the world to attempt to establish a unified national data property rights registration system. The Draft Guidelines seeks to provide a low-cost, predictable mechanism of public notice and reliance for data rights determination by means of “registration + certificate”. This is pioneering on a global scale.