On 17 February 2025, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) released six typical cases of protecting reputation rights involving enterprises in traditional industries, intermediary industries, technology companies, credit reporting agencies, and other fields in response to the challenges of the digital economy era. The release of typical cases provides a unified standard for judicial adjudication and an important reference for corporate rights protection.
Typical Case 1: A dispute over online infringement liability between a real estate agency v. Yang Moumou - the self-media operator should bear the tort liability for publishing “black articles” that infringe on another company’s reputation.
A real estate brokerage company discovered that Yang Moumou, an operator of a self-media account in the real estate field, published articles on its platform that defamed its reputation. These articles were false, and seriously damaged the company’s reputation. After the court trial, it was found that Yang Moumou published articles that defamed the company without factual basis, using insulting words such as “fraud” and “troublemaking” to interfere with its signing of a distribution contract. Therefore, the court ordered Yang Moumou to delete the infringing articles, publish an apology statement on the corresponding platform, and compensate the company for economic losses. This typical case clearly states that self-media operators shall not maliciously defame others through false content. The court's judgment provides a legal basis for enterprises to maintain their reputation rights and guide self-media to operate legally.
Typical Case 2: A dispute over the right of reputation between a beverage company v. a media company - Internet media that spreads false information to gain traffic and affects the normal operation of the company should bear the responsibility for infringing the right of reputation.
A beverage company discovered that a media company spread false information about its products to gain traffic, which led to consumers’ misunderstanding of its products and affected the company’s normal operations. After the court trial, it was found that the media company published false information about “layoffs of 20%” of the beverage company without verification, which led to the widespread dissemination of false information. Therefore, the court held that the behavior of the media company constituted an infringement of the beverage company’s reputation rights. The court ordered the media company to stop the infringement, issue an apology statement, and compensate the beverage company for economic losses. This typical case not only reminds companies to take timely measures to safeguard their rights and interests when facing false news but also warns the media that while pursuing traffic, they should first ensure the authenticity of the information and avoid creating false hot spots for traffic.
Typical Case 3: A network infringement liability dispute between Company C v. Company A and Company B - Corporate credit reporting agencies should bear tort liability for erroneously associating information that damages corporate reputation.
Company C found that Company A and Company B had erroneously associated the information of Company C and its chairman in the corporate credit reporting platform they operated, which led to public doubts about Company C’s business practices and reduced its social evaluation. After trial, it was found that the credit reporting platform erroneously associated the criminal information of a third party with the corporate information of Company C with the same name. The court held that Company A and Company B had failed to fulfill their reasonable duty of care, resulting in the publication of erroneous information, which constituted an infringement of Company C’s reputation rights. The court ordered Company A and Company B to issue an apology statement and compensate for losses. This typical case emphasizes the responsibility of credit reporting agencies in handling corporate information, requiring them to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of information when collecting, processing, and using information to avoid damage to corporate reputation.
Typical Case 4: An internet infringement dispute against a technology company and its founder - Derogatory remarks against the founder of a company constitute an infringement on the reputation of the company and should bear corresponding responsibilities.
Li Moumou, the founder of a technology company, found that there were derogatory remarks against him on the Internet, which not only damaged his reputation but also indirectly affected the reputation of the company. After the trial, the court held that the derogatory remarks constituted an infringement of the reputation rights of the company. The court ordered the infringer to stop the infringement and compensate the company for economic losses. This typical case shows that the reputation of the founder of an enterprise is closely related to the reputation of the enterprise. The court will comprehensively consider the relationship between them when making a judgment to protect the social evaluation of the core managers of the enterprise.
Typical Case 5: An internet infringement dispute between a vehicle manufacturer v. Ma Mou - the reviewer shall bear the tort liability for publishing false review articles without actual evaluation and misleading the public.
A vehicle manufacturer found that Ma Mou, a vehicle reviewer, published a vehicle review article on its platform without actual evaluation. The content was false, misleading consumers and damaging the company’s reputation. After the court trial, it was found that Ma Mou published a false description of a new energy vehicle on the social platform, such as “poor quality”, without actual evaluation. The court determined that the article published by Ma Mou constituted an infringement of the reputation rights of the manufacturer, and ordered Ma Mou to delete the infringing article and compensate the manufacturer for economic losses. This typical case reminds evaluation agencies and media to ensure the authenticity of information when conducting product evaluations to avoid misleading consumers.
Typical Case 6: A dispute over the right of reputation between an IoT company, an Internet company v. a catering company and a food company - Taking behavioral preservation measures by the court to stop the expansion of corporate reputation damage promptly.
An IoT company and an Internet company found that a catering company and a food company had published false information about them on their platforms, which aroused widespread social concern and damaged their reputation. During the trial, the court took into account the further damage that the infringement may cause and took behavioral preservation measures, requiring the catering company and the food company to immediately stop the infringement, promptly stop the spread of infringing information, avoid the expansion of damages, and then ordered them to compensate for the losses of the IoT company and the Internet company in the judgment. This typical case emphasizes the timeliness and effectiveness of the court in protecting the reputation rights of enterprises and provides an example of protecting the rights and interests of enterprises in emergencies.
In conclusion, the typical cases released by the SPC this time are conducive to maintaining a fair and competitive market environment, regulating online speech and commercial behavior, and enhancing companies’ confidence in a good business environment.
Typical Case 1: A dispute over online infringement liability between a real estate agency v. Yang Moumou - the self-media operator should bear the tort liability for publishing “black articles” that infringe on another company’s reputation.
A real estate brokerage company discovered that Yang Moumou, an operator of a self-media account in the real estate field, published articles on its platform that defamed its reputation. These articles were false, and seriously damaged the company’s reputation. After the court trial, it was found that Yang Moumou published articles that defamed the company without factual basis, using insulting words such as “fraud” and “troublemaking” to interfere with its signing of a distribution contract. Therefore, the court ordered Yang Moumou to delete the infringing articles, publish an apology statement on the corresponding platform, and compensate the company for economic losses. This typical case clearly states that self-media operators shall not maliciously defame others through false content. The court's judgment provides a legal basis for enterprises to maintain their reputation rights and guide self-media to operate legally.
Typical Case 2: A dispute over the right of reputation between a beverage company v. a media company - Internet media that spreads false information to gain traffic and affects the normal operation of the company should bear the responsibility for infringing the right of reputation.
A beverage company discovered that a media company spread false information about its products to gain traffic, which led to consumers’ misunderstanding of its products and affected the company’s normal operations. After the court trial, it was found that the media company published false information about “layoffs of 20%” of the beverage company without verification, which led to the widespread dissemination of false information. Therefore, the court held that the behavior of the media company constituted an infringement of the beverage company’s reputation rights. The court ordered the media company to stop the infringement, issue an apology statement, and compensate the beverage company for economic losses. This typical case not only reminds companies to take timely measures to safeguard their rights and interests when facing false news but also warns the media that while pursuing traffic, they should first ensure the authenticity of the information and avoid creating false hot spots for traffic.
Typical Case 3: A network infringement liability dispute between Company C v. Company A and Company B - Corporate credit reporting agencies should bear tort liability for erroneously associating information that damages corporate reputation.
Company C found that Company A and Company B had erroneously associated the information of Company C and its chairman in the corporate credit reporting platform they operated, which led to public doubts about Company C’s business practices and reduced its social evaluation. After trial, it was found that the credit reporting platform erroneously associated the criminal information of a third party with the corporate information of Company C with the same name. The court held that Company A and Company B had failed to fulfill their reasonable duty of care, resulting in the publication of erroneous information, which constituted an infringement of Company C’s reputation rights. The court ordered Company A and Company B to issue an apology statement and compensate for losses. This typical case emphasizes the responsibility of credit reporting agencies in handling corporate information, requiring them to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of information when collecting, processing, and using information to avoid damage to corporate reputation.
Typical Case 4: An internet infringement dispute against a technology company and its founder - Derogatory remarks against the founder of a company constitute an infringement on the reputation of the company and should bear corresponding responsibilities.
Li Moumou, the founder of a technology company, found that there were derogatory remarks against him on the Internet, which not only damaged his reputation but also indirectly affected the reputation of the company. After the trial, the court held that the derogatory remarks constituted an infringement of the reputation rights of the company. The court ordered the infringer to stop the infringement and compensate the company for economic losses. This typical case shows that the reputation of the founder of an enterprise is closely related to the reputation of the enterprise. The court will comprehensively consider the relationship between them when making a judgment to protect the social evaluation of the core managers of the enterprise.
Typical Case 5: An internet infringement dispute between a vehicle manufacturer v. Ma Mou - the reviewer shall bear the tort liability for publishing false review articles without actual evaluation and misleading the public.
A vehicle manufacturer found that Ma Mou, a vehicle reviewer, published a vehicle review article on its platform without actual evaluation. The content was false, misleading consumers and damaging the company’s reputation. After the court trial, it was found that Ma Mou published a false description of a new energy vehicle on the social platform, such as “poor quality”, without actual evaluation. The court determined that the article published by Ma Mou constituted an infringement of the reputation rights of the manufacturer, and ordered Ma Mou to delete the infringing article and compensate the manufacturer for economic losses. This typical case reminds evaluation agencies and media to ensure the authenticity of information when conducting product evaluations to avoid misleading consumers.
Typical Case 6: A dispute over the right of reputation between an IoT company, an Internet company v. a catering company and a food company - Taking behavioral preservation measures by the court to stop the expansion of corporate reputation damage promptly.
An IoT company and an Internet company found that a catering company and a food company had published false information about them on their platforms, which aroused widespread social concern and damaged their reputation. During the trial, the court took into account the further damage that the infringement may cause and took behavioral preservation measures, requiring the catering company and the food company to immediately stop the infringement, promptly stop the spread of infringing information, avoid the expansion of damages, and then ordered them to compensate for the losses of the IoT company and the Internet company in the judgment. This typical case emphasizes the timeliness and effectiveness of the court in protecting the reputation rights of enterprises and provides an example of protecting the rights and interests of enterprises in emergencies.
In conclusion, the typical cases released by the SPC this time are conducive to maintaining a fair and competitive market environment, regulating online speech and commercial behavior, and enhancing companies’ confidence in a good business environment.