Intellectual property and data protection in the field of e-commerce

Author: Cai Peng, Wang Mengdi

1. Protection of intellectual property rights

In the e-commerce environment, the variability of the market environment and the speed of transactions make the protection of intellectual property rights particularly important. The implementation of the E-Commerce Law and the formal promulgation of the Civil Code have established a relatively complete institutional framework for the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms in intellectual property infringement, and the relevant administrative departments and local law enforcement agencies have put forward specific requirements for the protection of intellectual property rights.

(1) Civil Code

The Internet has given birth to the rise of the platform economy, and many Internet platforms have begun to play a pivotal role in social and economic life. [1] Due to the massive and ever-changing nature of platform users and information, it is objectively difficult for the platform to comprehensively review the various behaviors of network users in advance, and online infringement is frequent, which also derives the principle of sharing the infringement of users on the platform by the e-commerce platform as a network service provider. [2] Articles 1194-1197 of the Civil Code integrate the provisions of Articles 42 and 43 of the E-Commerce Law on the basis of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, further balancing the interests of all parties and building a relatively complete mechanism for handling online infringement.

Compared with Article 43 of the E-Commerce Law, Articles 1195-1197 of the Civil Code have been adjusted as follows:

First, Article 1195 of the Civil Code clarifies that the "notice" issued by the right holder shall contain not only "prima facie evidence of infringement" but also "the true identity information of the right holder", which will facilitate the e-commerce platform to make corresponding judgments on the identity of the right holder, so as to control malicious complaints.

Second, Article 1195 of the Civil Code adjusts the process for online service providers (including e-commerce platform operators) to take action after receiving a notice from the rights holder. Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the E-Commerce Law stipulates that after receiving the notice, the e-commerce platform operator shall take necessary measures in a timely manner and forward the notice to the operator on the platform; Article 1195 of the Civil Code stipulates that after receiving a notice, an internet service provider shall promptly forward the notice to the relevant network user and take necessary measures based on the prima facie evidence of infringement and the type of service provided. Article 1195 of the Civil Code adjusts the order of "forwarding notices" by network service providers to before "taking necessary measures", so that network users (including operators on e-commerce platforms) who are accused of infringement can take timely response measures before the network service provider takes necessary measures.

Third, Article 1195 of the Civil Code clarifies that network service providers shall take necessary measures based on "prima facie evidence of infringement and the type of services constituting infringement", which makes the content of "necessary measures" more diversified, and network service providers can take self-appropriate measures according to the type of services they provide and according to the principle of prudence, rather than "deleting, blocking, disconnecting links, terminating transactions and services" and other measures. The adjustment of the above-mentioned provisions in the Civil Code is conducive to further balancing the rights and interests of network service providers (including e-commerce platforms), online users (including operators within e-commerce platforms) and rights holders, so as to deal with online infringement disputes (including disputes involving e-commerce intellectual property infringement) more flexibly.

Fourth, compared with the "15 days" waiting period for an e-commerce platform to serve the transfer statement on the intellectual property rights holder in Article 43 of the E-Commerce Law, Article 1196 of the Civil Code adjusts the waiting period to a "reasonable period". The adjustment makes the specific duration of the "waiting period" more flexible, and network service providers (including e-commerce platform operators) can determine the specific period according to the type and nature of the services they provide.

After the implementation of the Civil Code, network operators may make corresponding adjustments to the procedures and specific rules for handling intellectual property infringement on the platform in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, so as to handle relevant disputes more flexibly and further balance the relationship between the rights holder and the operators on the platform.

On the other hand, the promulgation of the Civil Code has also brought confusion about the application of the law, when the mechanism set out in the Civil Code is inconsistent with the E-commerce Law, which set of rules should be applied to e-commerce platforms and practitioners? We can only find the answer from the relevant "applicable judicial interpretations" to be issued by the Supreme People's Court in the future. However, from the recent draft judicial interpretation on e-commerce issued by the Supreme People's Court, we still find some obvious problems in the application of law, including the conflict between some rules and the Civil Code at the same time.

(2) "Notice-takedown" rule issues

Article 42 of the E-Commerce Law clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of e-commerce platform operators with respect to "notice-takedown". At the same time, it clarifies the right of counter-notification of operators on the platform, and also stipulates the legal liability for double compensation for malicious notification. This article focuses on the "notice-takedown" rule in the E-Commerce Law, and mainly discusses the review obligations of e-commerce platforms and the necessary measures that can be taken.

1. Positioning of the "Notice-Delete" rule

Judging from the provisions of Article 42 of the E-Commerce Law, the "notice-takedown" rule has generated a lot of confusion and controversy in terms of the design of the specific implementation and the legal liability. This legislative change is explained by the legislative drafting group as follows: with the development of e-commerce, "notice-takedown" is no longer limited to the tort liability limitation system or the grounds of defense, but has been integrated into the framework of Internet governance. The "notice-takedown" rule stipulated in the E-Commerce Law is a reflection of Internet governance on e-commerce platforms, and is a new measure of Internet governance with the joint participation of multiple parties, which is different from the simple defense mechanism for intellectual property infringement liability. [3] However, in the process of e-commerce development, e-commerce platforms play a central role and carry many operators, so the autonomous governance rules of the platform are an important part of ensuring the ecological balance within the platform and the development of e-commerce, and the "notice-takedown" rule is an important measure for the intellectual property governance of e-commerce platforms. According to the existing legislative framework, if the platform fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner after receiving the notice, it will not only be jointly and severally liable with the operator on the platform for the enlarged part of the damage, but will also face a high fine[4], so the liability borne by the platform is beyond reasonable expectations. If an e-commerce platform operator fails to take necessary measures after receiving the notice, does it mean that it is subjectively at fault? Can this kind of legal liability be better promoted by the platform to carry out health governance? Now, at least at the level of implementation and understanding, there is more controversy and confusion.

2. The review obligation of the e-commerce platform

After receiving the "notice" from the right holder, whether the e-commerce platform operator should conduct a formal or substantive examination to determine whether there is infringement and then take measures is an important issue for the liability boundary of the e-commerce platform under the "notice-takedown" rule.

The drafting group of the E-commerce Law believes that the platform only needs to conduct a formal review through the system, and does not need to make a legal judgment on the content of the notice, nor does it need to investigate the alleged content of the notice. [5] However, the joint research group of the Zhejiang Provincial High Court held that the E-Commerce Law stipulates that "the notice shall include prima facie evidence of infringement", and the degree of review of the platform is closely related to the elements of constituting a qualified notice. If the platform does not need to make any legal judgment on the notice, it would be meaningless to require the notifier to provide prima facie evidence of infringement[6]. As for the extent to which e-commerce platform operators should be reviewed, we believe that the key point is how to balance the interests of rights holders, operators within e-commerce platforms, and e-commerce platform operators. The existing law sets out a mechanism to encourage platforms to take active actions to eliminate possible potential infringement risks or problems.

At the same time, imposing excessive review obligations on e-commerce platforms does not conform to objective reality, nor does it conform to the original intention and intent of the legislation, because:

First, most of the intellectual property cases are complex, and the determination and judgment are professional legal judgments, while most e-commerce platforms lack the resources to review and the ability to judge infringement.

Second, e-commerce platforms carry a huge number of merchants, and intellectual property infringement also occurs from time to time in e-commerce platforms, and if e-commerce platforms are required to conduct a comprehensive substantive examination, it will inevitably reduce efficiency and is not in line with the characteristics of e-commerce development;

Third, the law requires the right holder to submit preliminary evidence in order to impose certain obligations on the right holder to make a certain sort out and judgment on its own infringement status, so as to avoid erroneous or malicious notification and making the "notice" a means of unfair competition, which is also in line with the basic principle of "whoever asserts the claim shall bear the burden of proof" in civil law, so it is not appropriate to identify the submission requirement of "preliminary evidence" as a reason for the e-commerce platform to raise the review standard.

According to the "Research Report on Intellectual Property Legal Liability in the Field of E-commerce" released by the joint research group of the Zhejiang Provincial High Court, in commercial practice, the platform is very entangled in the review standards of the notice. In order to avoid the occurrence of false and malicious notifications, platforms are more inclined to strictly review whether the notification is valid[7]. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the law stipulates the liability of the right holder for erroneous and malicious notices, and also stipulates the right of "counter-notification" of the operator on the e-commerce platform, in fact, corresponding arrangements have been made for the rights and obligations of the relevant entities. However, at the same time, the law also sets corresponding review obligations and standards for platforms, and under such a premise, the review of e-commerce platforms should no longer be just a formal review, but more likely to be a pre-examination procedure that effectively "replaces" judicial review.

The Guiding Opinions on the Trial of Cases Involving Intellectual Property Disputes Involving E-commerce Platforms (Draft for Comments) issued by the Supreme People's Court on June 10, 2020 enumerates the contents of the "notice" issued by an intellectual property rights holder to an e-commerce platform operator, including: proof of intellectual property rights and information on valid rights holders, information on the allegedly infringing goods or services that can be accurately located, prima facie evidence of infringement, specific measures required to be taken by e-commerce platforms, and guarantees of the authenticity of the notice. At the same time, in the Amendment to the Patent Law (Second Reading Draft) issued by the National People's Congress on July 3, 2020, compared with the Amendment to the Patent Law (Draft), the pre-provision on "judicial/administrative review" of patents has been deleted, and the setting of "platform review" has been retained.

It can be seen that the legislative and judicial trends have not changed the positioning of e-commerce platforms, and e-commerce platform operators should strengthen their ability to review relevant complaints in order to respond to the requirements of the law.

3. "Necessary measures" that e-commerce platforms can take

According to the provisions of the E-Commerce Law, e-commerce platform operators may, upon receipt of notice, take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, disconnecting links, and terminating transactions and services. In Guiding Case No. 83 issued by the Supreme People's Court,[8] the court of second instance applied Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, holding that Tmall did not necessarily take deletion measures after receiving a complaint of infringement of an invention patent, but that forwarding the notice of conformity to the notified party was one of the necessary measures it should take.

The E-Commerce Law does not adopt the judgment of the Supreme People's Court, but clearly states that after receiving the notice, the platform "shall take necessary measures in a timely manner and transmit the notice to the operators on the platform". From the superficial semantics of legislation, necessary measures and notice of transmission are stipulated as two independent actions, resulting in the loss of room for interpretation when the court adjudicates a specific case. Therefore, the notice of transfer in the E-Commerce Law cannot be understood as a necessary measure, otherwise it will override the process provisions of the law and do not conform to the basic principles of legal interpretation. [9]

The Reply of the Supreme People's Court on 10 June 2020 on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Disputes Involving Online Intellectual Property Infringement (Draft for Comments) describes "necessary measures" as "failure to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, and disconnecting links in a timely manner".

According to the legal interpretation, there are no preconditions for the above-mentioned "necessary measures" (e.g., following the principle of reasonable precaution, according to the prima facie evidence of infringement and the type of service, etc.), so we understand that the "etc" here can be interpreted as "within", that is, the necessary measures indicated by "etc." are similar in effect to those already enumerated; Although "termination of transactions and services" is not listed here, we understand that this provision is not fundamentally different from the scope of "necessary measures" in the E-Commerce Law.

Different from the above-mentioned Reply on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Disputes Involving Online Intellectual Property Infringement (Draft for Comments), the Guiding Opinions on the Trial of Cases Involving Intellectual Property Disputes Involving E-commerce Platforms (Draft for Comments) issued by the Supreme People's Court on the same day stipulates that "e-commerce platform operators shall take necessary measures in a timely manner according to the nature of the infringed rights, the specific circumstances of the infringement and the technical conditions." The necessary measures taken shall follow the principle of reasonable prudence, including but not limited to deleting, blocking, disconnecting links and other takedown measures", and the premise of "termination of transactions and services" is that "the operators on the platform have repeatedly and intentionally infringed intellectual property rights". The Guiding Opinions (Draft for Comments) set out certain requirements for the "necessary measures" to be taken by e-commerce platforms, clarified that the necessary measures to be taken should follow the principle of reasonable prudence, and provided for the reference factors for what necessary measures should be taken by e-commerce platform operators.

Compared with the E-Commerce Law, the above-mentioned Guiding Opinions (Draft for Comments) provide an inclusive explanation of the "necessary measures" listed in the E-Commerce Law, i.e., "including but not limited to deleting, blocking, disconnecting links and other takedown measures", which indicates that the "necessary measures" include a wide range of contents, and on the premise of following the principle of reasonable prudence, e-commerce platforms can decide the necessary measures that can be taken according to the specific situation of the infringement. The provisions on "necessary measures" in the Guiding Opinions (Draft for Comments) are consistent with the principles and necessary measures that can be taken as defined in Guiding Case No. 83 of the Supreme People's Court and Article 1195 of the Civil Code, i.e., necessary measures do not necessarily refer to takedown measures such as deletion, blocking, or disconnection of links. time and other objective factors, and the right to make independent decisions to prudently take necessary measures.

II. Personal Information Protection and Data Use

With the continuous expansion of the e-commerce market in mainland China, the number of participants has also increased, and today millions of consumers rely on e-commerce transactions to meet a variety of shopping needs. The huge amount of consumers' personal information and transaction-related data collected based on e-commerce transactions is an important resource with great business value. In the context of the rapid development of the Internet, e-commerce and platform economy, the promulgated Civil Code responds to the protection of personal information and data, and establishes the civil law foundation for personal information and data protection. In the e-commerce environment, the effective protection of personal information and the conflict between business practices, the gray area of data acquisition, and the internal control mechanism and external responsibility of enterprises are all important issues worthy of attention.

(1) Trends in the protection of personal information

Since 2019, administrative law enforcement activities in the field of cyber security and data protection and personal information protection have been intensive, accounting for more than 60% of cyber security administrative law enforcement activities. Among them, the privacy policy enforcement of APP is an important part of personal information protection law enforcement. For example, on September 19, 2019, 32 apps were required by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to rectify for "collecting and using users' personal information without users' consent"; On May 14, 2020, a driving app was required by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to rectify due to "privately collecting personal information, sharing it with third parties without permission, forcing users to use the targeted push function, and excessively requesting permissions"; On July 3, 2020, TutorABC was ordered by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) to rectify its claims for "collecting personal information without permission, collecting personal information beyond the scope, sharing it with third parties without permission, forcing users to use the targeted push function, frequently applying for permissions, and excessively requesting permissions". From the above regulatory cases, it can be seen that compared with 2019, the law enforcement against apps in 2020 will be stricter and more refined, not only limited to authorization and consent issues, but also extended to personal information sharing, targeted push, permission application and other issues.

On July 22, 2020, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Administration for Market Regulation held a meeting in Beijing on July 22, 2020 to start the governance of the illegal collection and use of personal information by apps in 2020. On July 25, the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee issued the "Practice Guide for Cybersecurity Standards - Guidelines for Self-Assessment of the Collection and Use of Personal Information by Mobile Internet Applications (Apps)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Guidelines") for self-assessment and reference by APP operators, and operators such as Mini Programs and Quick Apps can also refer to the adaptation clauses therein for self-assessment.

At present, most e-commerce enterprises will carry out e-commerce activities in the form of apps, mini programs, quick applications or WeChat official accounts, and relevant enterprises can carry out the evaluation of relevant products in accordance with the requirements of the Assessment Guidelines, carry out external compliance of products (including but not limited to the setting of privacy policies, optimization of product interfaces, etc.), and establish an internal compliance system as soon as possible. At the same time, according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, e-commerce operators or operators on e-commerce platforms, as personal information processors, shall comply with the principles and responsibilities of personal information protection in Articles 111, 1035 and 1038 of the Civil Code. Therefore, after the implementation of the Civil Code, e-commerce platforms or operators within the platform shall perform compliance obligations in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code.

(1) The lawful acquisition and use of data

1. APP compliance issues

Under the current personal information protection framework, considering that APP is the main means of introducing traffic in the mobile Internet era, APP compliance is the key content of e-commerce enterprise compliance. APP compliance can be divided into two main aspects: internal compliance and external compliance. In terms of internal compliance, enterprises need to establish an internal compliance mechanism to clarify the specific positions and responsibilities and corresponding personnel in the process of APP operation, so as to effectively resist external risks. In terms of external compliance, a complete user agreement and privacy policy should be formulated according to the specific application scenarios of the app, and in terms of content, the user agreement should explain the rules for the use of the app and clarify the rights and responsibilities between the operator and the user. The privacy policy needs to clarify the content of the whole life process of the user's personal information from collection to use, storage, sharing, and export, and at the same time ensure the exercise of the user's rights such as access, correction, and deletion; In terms of form, it is necessary to ensure that the user agreement and privacy policy are independently written, and when the user uses/opens the product for the first time, the user is prompted to read it in a conspicuous way (pop-up window, embedded link, etc.), and the user is authorized to agree to the user agreement and privacy policy by clicking on the consent and checking box settings.

2. The issue of ownership of data products

On the issue of the ownership of data products, the 2019 Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court retried the commercial bribery and unfair competition dispute case between Anhui Meijing Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd.[10], which determined the ownership of big data products. The court held that the data content that network big data products originated from network user information and was ultimately presented to consumers through a large amount of investment in intellectual labor by network operators, and after in-depth development and system integration, was independent of network user information and original network data, and was derivative data that had no direct correspondence with network user information and original network data. Network operators shall enjoy their own independent property rights and interests in the big data products they develop.

It can be seen that for the big data products developed by e-commerce platforms, whether they enjoy independent property rights and interests can be considered from two aspects: first, the legitimacy of original data acquisition; Second, the property rights and interests of big data products. Specifically:

First, the legitimate rights and interests of e-commerce platforms for big data products need to be based on the judgment of the legality of the original data acquisition. For example, whether the network operator obtains data on a "minimum, necessary" basis; whether it clearly states the scope, purpose, and scenarios of data use in the relevant documents in the relevant documents; whether the relevant data has been anonymized and de-identified after acquisition; whether the internal data compliance system has been established, etc. On the basis of satisfying the above-mentioned legitimacy, the property rights and interests of big data products are further considered;

Second, whether a big data product has property rights and interests can be considered through the following factors: the amount of intellectual labor paid by the network operator, the size of the technical investment, the economic benefits and exchange value of the product itself, etc. If the relevant data product is a data product that the network operator has put in a lot of intellectual labor, carried out corresponding technology development and system integration, and has formed a data product with exchange value and market economic benefits, it can be determined that the network operator has property rights and interests in the relevant big data product.

3. Data scraping problems

In the e-commerce environment, the economic value of data is constantly highlighted, and the application of big data also provides a lot of convenience for the development and upgrading of software or technology and marketing of e-commerce enterprises. As a result, a series of data crawling issues have also arisen, such as crawling data in violation of the Robots protocol and whether a large amount of scraped data constitutes an act of unfair competition.

In an unfair competition dispute case[11], the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court pointed out that the act of scraping data in compliance with the robots agreement does not necessarily constitute an act of unfair competition, because the robots agreement cannot solve the problem of whether the use of data by other entities after scraping the data is legal. With regard to the platform's rights to data, the court pointed out that the relevant data formed by the e-commerce platform through accumulation is obtained with a lot of resources and has high economic value, but the rights enjoyed by the platform to the data are not absolute. Regarding the use and acquisition of data, the court pointed out that when other entities obtain and use information obtained by others, they should follow generally accepted business ethics and use it within a relatively reasonable range. On the issue of the reasonableness of unauthorized scraping, the court put forward the following considerations: the property investment of the information acquirer, the right of the information user to compete freely (such as whether it has a positive effect on consumers, whether the use exceeds the necessary limit, etc.), and the public's interest in free access to information.

Data scraping is a concern on the Internet, which determines the ecosystem and mechanism of the Internet to a certain extent. In the HiQ and LinkedIn case in the United States, EFF, search engine DuckDuckGo, and the Internet Archive filed an amicus curiae urging the court to recognize crawlers as a common technology that should support pro bono research and other beneficial uses. Since human transcription is legal and legitimate, what is the substantive difference between web scraping, which is simply a machine automating web browsing, accessing, and recording the same information, as a technical issue? On September 9, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of United States ruled in HiQ v. LinkedIn, finding that HiQ's scraping of publicly available personal information and data from LinkedIn did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and upholding the court of first instance's ruling in favor of HiQ[12].

The legal issues involved in data capture are complex, including the exercise of data subjects' rights, public interest considerations, and a balance of competition. We believe that in the e-commerce environment, the legitimacy of e-commerce enterprises to obtain relevant data through data scraping behavior should be comprehensively considered according to the subjective intention of the data acquisition party, the method of capture, the willingness of the data subject, and the losses of the captured party. From the perspective of existing legal provisions and judicial enforcement, we recommend that the following factors can be taken into account:

First, in terms of the quantity and scope of data capture, whether the principle of minimum necessity is followed to avoid over-scope acquisition;

second, whether the use of the captured data has been obtained with the basic authorization of the data subject, whether it has complied with the legal contract with others, and whether it has been used within a relatively reasonable scope;

Third, whether the scraping behavior is unnecessary and creates an excessive burden and obstacle to other people's websites.

4. Data commercialization

Precision marketing in the e-commerce environment is usually based on the results of big data analysis such as user portraits, and is presented in the form of in-app targeted pushes, marketing text messages, or phone calls. Precision marketing is related to the economic value of data and directly affects the user's experience, so it is easy to cause customer complaints.

For e-commerce enterprises, in order to legally carry out precision marketing and reduce or avoid customer complaints, the following compliance measures can be adopted to implement precision marketing behaviors: first, the use scenarios of precision marketing and personalized push should be clearly explained in the privacy policy (including the purpose, type of data collected, etc.); Second, when conducting precision marketing or personalized push to users, it is necessary to significantly distinguish between the content of non-personalized display and the content of personalized display (for example, through different columns and sections, the word "fixed push", etc.); Third, to provide users with a way to exit and ensure that the exit is effective; Fourth, when users choose to cancel or turn off precision marketing services, delete and anonymize relevant personal information.

III. Conclusion

Intellectual property rights and data protection are hot and difficult issues in the field of e-commerce. The continuous changes in legislation and the tightening of law enforcement have prompted e-commerce operators to adopt reasonable and appropriate compliance ideas to build a compliance system. It is necessary not only to avoid the regression of the business model caused by "choking on food", but also to reasonably control the unnecessary litigation caused by "radical" behavior.

Next, we will release the fourth article in the series of observation reports on the E-commerce Law - "E-commerce Platform Liability and Consumer Rights and Interests Protection". We will review and discuss issues such as Internet advertising, consumer rights protection, electronic contracts, and platform dispute resolution rules based on the latest laws and regulations and industry trends, so stay tuned.

[Note]

[1] Xue Jun, "China's Civil Code in the Internet Era (New Theory)," People's Daily, July 1, 2020.

[2] Shanghai Higher People's Court's Internet Judicial Research Group, "Combing the Origins, Content Interpretation and Case Tips of Key Internet-related Provisions of the Civil Code".

[3] E-Commerce Law Drafting Group, "Interpretation of the Provisions of the People's Republic of China E-Commerce Law", Law Press, 2018, p. 128.

[4] Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court Joint Research Group, "Research Report on Intellectual Property Legal Liability in the Field of E-commerce", People's Justice, No. 7, 2020.

[5] E-Commerce Law Drafting Group, "Interpretation of the Provisions of the People's Republic of China E-Commerce Law", Law Press, 2018, p. 130.

[6] Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court Joint Research Group, "Research Report on Intellectual Property Legal Liability in the Field of E-commerce", People's Justice, No. 7, 2020.

[7] Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court Joint Research Group, "Research Report on Intellectual Property Legal Liability in the Field of E-commerce", People's Justice, No. 7, 2020.

[8] Guiding Case No. 83 of the Supreme People's Court: Weihai Jiayi Bake Life Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Yongkang Jinshide Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of invention patent.

[9] Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court Joint Research Group, "Research Report on Intellectual Property Legal Liability in the Field of E-commerce", People's Justice, No. 7, 2020.

[10] (2019) Zhe Min Shen No. 1209 Retrial Civil Judgment.

[11] (2016) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 242.

[12] HiQ v. LinkedIn Case of Second Instance Judgment: Legality of Scraping Public Data - He Yuan, in "Data Law Alliance" WeChat public account.