On 11 October 2025, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) promulgated the Provisions on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts (“Provisions”). Between 2017 and 2018, China established three Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou (“Internet Courts”). In September 2018, the SPC issued the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts (“2018 Provisions”), clarifying that the three Internet Courts will have centralized jurisdiction over eleven categories of internet-related disputes within the jurisdiction of their cities, including online shopping, internet services, digital financial loans, micro-lending, online copyright, domain names, cyber torts, product liability in e-commerce, and internet-related public interest litigation. Building upon the 2018 Provisions and in response to evolving challenges in cyberspace governance and new demands of the digital economy, the newly introduced Provisions further refine and optimize the classification of cases under the jurisdiction of the Internet Courts.
The Provisions, comprising four articles, delineate the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts, rules governing contractual jurisdiction, and mechanisms for appellate review. Article 1 enumerates nine categories of first-instance cases falling under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts within their respective municipal areas, which would otherwise be adjudicated by basic-level courts: 1) Disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts relating to online data; 2) Disputes concerning online personal information protection and privacy rights; 3) Disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts involving virtual property; 4) Disputes arising from online unfair competition; 5) Disputes over domain name ownership, infringement, and related contracts; 6) Disputes arising from online shopping contracts concluded or performed via e-commerce platforms; 7) Disputes related to online service contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted entirely over the internet; 8) Administrative disputes resulting from regulatory actions taken by administrative agencies concerning online data supervision, personal information protection, unfair competition regulation, online transaction management, and internet information service management; and 9) Online public interest litigation cases initiated by procuratorial organs. Such cases include foreign-related civil disputes. Additionally, the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts extends to other specific categories of online civil and administrative cases approved by the SPC.
Compared with the 2018 Provisions, the Provisions introduce four additional categories of novel and complex internet-related disputes under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. They are “disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts relating to online data”, “disputes concerning online personal information protection and privacy rights”, “disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts involving virtual property”, and “disputes arising from online unfair competition”. Upon the effectiveness of the Provisions, these four newly added categories of cases will fall under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts.
The Provisions have removed the cases, including “disputes over financial loan contracts and micro-lending contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted online”, “disputes over copyright or neighboring rights ownership of works first published online”, “disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights in works published or disseminated online”, “product liability disputes arising from defective products purchased via e-commerce platforms that infringe upon personal or property rights”, as well as traditional online tort disputes involving infringement of reputation rights, general personality rights, and property rights, from the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. These removed disputes shall be adjudicated by relevant basic-level courts in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction rules under the Civil Procedure Law. Cases involving online copyright disputes will be handled by designated centralized jurisdiction courts pursuant to the SPC Notice of Issuance of Relevant Matters Concerning Civil and Administrative Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights under Original Jurisdiction of Primary People’s Courts. Taking Beijing as an example, online copyright cases within the municipality will be centrally adjudicated by six basic-level courts—including Dongcheng, Xicheng, and Chaoyang District Courts—based on their respective jurisdictional zones.
The Provisions retain four categories of cases under the continued jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. They are “disputes concerning domain name ownership, infringement, and related contracts”; “disputes arising from online shopping contracts concluded or performed via e-commerce platforms”; “disputes related to online service contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted entirely over the internet”; and “online public interest litigation cases initiated by procuratorial organs”.
Articles 2 to 4 of the Provisions address matters concerning contractual jurisdiction, designated jurisdiction, and appellate mechanisms for the Internet Courts, maintaining overall consistency with the 2018 Provisions. Article 2 stipulates that for civil disputes involving contracts or other property rights within the centralized jurisdiction, parties may agree to submit their case to an Internet court at a location having substantial connection with the dispute. Article 3 clarifies that appeals against judgments or rulings rendered by an Internet court shall be heard by the intermediate court in the same locality as the Internet court. Where multiple intermediate courts exist in such locality, the appeal shall be heard by the intermediate court designated by the higher court. Appeals falling under specialized jurisdiction shall be adjudicated by the corresponding specialized court. Article 4 specifies that the Provisions will take effect on 1 November 2025. Cases already accepted prior to the effective date shall continue to be handled by the originally accepting court.
In conclusion, the Provisions optimize the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts under the framework of the 2018 Provisions by introducing four new categories of disputes—data ownership, AI algorithm disputes, virtual property, and online unfair competition—while removing four relatively conventional categories—online lending, standard online copyright infringement, e-commerce product liability, and online defamation disputes—to other judicial authorities. This recalibration aims to refocus Internet courts on adjudicating novel, cutting-edge, and complex cyber-related cases.
The Provisions, comprising four articles, delineate the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts, rules governing contractual jurisdiction, and mechanisms for appellate review. Article 1 enumerates nine categories of first-instance cases falling under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts within their respective municipal areas, which would otherwise be adjudicated by basic-level courts: 1) Disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts relating to online data; 2) Disputes concerning online personal information protection and privacy rights; 3) Disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts involving virtual property; 4) Disputes arising from online unfair competition; 5) Disputes over domain name ownership, infringement, and related contracts; 6) Disputes arising from online shopping contracts concluded or performed via e-commerce platforms; 7) Disputes related to online service contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted entirely over the internet; 8) Administrative disputes resulting from regulatory actions taken by administrative agencies concerning online data supervision, personal information protection, unfair competition regulation, online transaction management, and internet information service management; and 9) Online public interest litigation cases initiated by procuratorial organs. Such cases include foreign-related civil disputes. Additionally, the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts extends to other specific categories of online civil and administrative cases approved by the SPC.
Compared with the 2018 Provisions, the Provisions introduce four additional categories of novel and complex internet-related disputes under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. They are “disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts relating to online data”, “disputes concerning online personal information protection and privacy rights”, “disputes over ownership, infringement, and contracts involving virtual property”, and “disputes arising from online unfair competition”. Upon the effectiveness of the Provisions, these four newly added categories of cases will fall under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts.
The Provisions have removed the cases, including “disputes over financial loan contracts and micro-lending contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted online”, “disputes over copyright or neighboring rights ownership of works first published online”, “disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights in works published or disseminated online”, “product liability disputes arising from defective products purchased via e-commerce platforms that infringe upon personal or property rights”, as well as traditional online tort disputes involving infringement of reputation rights, general personality rights, and property rights, from the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. These removed disputes shall be adjudicated by relevant basic-level courts in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction rules under the Civil Procedure Law. Cases involving online copyright disputes will be handled by designated centralized jurisdiction courts pursuant to the SPC Notice of Issuance of Relevant Matters Concerning Civil and Administrative Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights under Original Jurisdiction of Primary People’s Courts. Taking Beijing as an example, online copyright cases within the municipality will be centrally adjudicated by six basic-level courts—including Dongcheng, Xicheng, and Chaoyang District Courts—based on their respective jurisdictional zones.
The Provisions retain four categories of cases under the continued jurisdiction of the Internet Courts. They are “disputes concerning domain name ownership, infringement, and related contracts”; “disputes arising from online shopping contracts concluded or performed via e-commerce platforms”; “disputes related to online service contracts where both conclusion and performance are conducted entirely over the internet”; and “online public interest litigation cases initiated by procuratorial organs”.
Articles 2 to 4 of the Provisions address matters concerning contractual jurisdiction, designated jurisdiction, and appellate mechanisms for the Internet Courts, maintaining overall consistency with the 2018 Provisions. Article 2 stipulates that for civil disputes involving contracts or other property rights within the centralized jurisdiction, parties may agree to submit their case to an Internet court at a location having substantial connection with the dispute. Article 3 clarifies that appeals against judgments or rulings rendered by an Internet court shall be heard by the intermediate court in the same locality as the Internet court. Where multiple intermediate courts exist in such locality, the appeal shall be heard by the intermediate court designated by the higher court. Appeals falling under specialized jurisdiction shall be adjudicated by the corresponding specialized court. Article 4 specifies that the Provisions will take effect on 1 November 2025. Cases already accepted prior to the effective date shall continue to be handled by the originally accepting court.
In conclusion, the Provisions optimize the jurisdictional scope of the Internet Courts under the framework of the 2018 Provisions by introducing four new categories of disputes—data ownership, AI algorithm disputes, virtual property, and online unfair competition—while removing four relatively conventional categories—online lending, standard online copyright infringement, e-commerce product liability, and online defamation disputes—to other judicial authorities. This recalibration aims to refocus Internet courts on adjudicating novel, cutting-edge, and complex cyber-related cases.