Please wait while the page is loading...
30 April 2026
As online platform business models become increasingly complex and integrated, the legal assessment of liability for IP infringement will continue to be refined through ongoing judicial practice. Hongxia Wu and Fan Li explain.
Online platforms have been playing an increasingly critical role within China’s commercial ecosystem. According to statistics, China’s online retail sales reached Rmb15.97 trillion (US$2.3 trillion) in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 8.6 percent. Among them, online retail sales of physical goods amounted to Rmb13.09 trillion (US$1.9 trillion), accounting for 26.1 percent of total retail sales of consumer goods. In 2024, the added value of the essential digital economy industry reached Rmb1.4 trillion(US$205.2 billion), accounting for 10.5 percent of GDP. The dynamic growth of online business in today’s rapidly evolving market demands both effective and proactive legal framework against online IP infringements.
While integrating multiple services into their business, online platforms have also taken on multiple identities. For example, some act both as an ecommerce platform operator and self-operated stores on the platform. Some content providers have evolved from initial user-generated short video and image-sharing media into comprehensive platforms integrating live streaming, ecommerce marketing and content monetization, with dual identities as content-sharing service providers and ecommerce operators. Different identities assumed by online platforms lead to different schemes in assessing their liabilities for IP infringements.
Moreover, online platforms have seen substantial shifts in their business models in recent years, particularly through the extensive integration of algorithmic recommendation technologies. Instead of passively providing technical support, online platforms are actively selecting and pushing contents, products and commercials. Online platforms’ active or intentional participation and control over content dissemination and commodity transactions has introduced new layers of complexity to this already challenging legal landscape. This transformation of business models also poses challenges to the determination of intellectual property infringement liability for online platforms.
Rules for determining civil liability of online platforms for intellectual property infringement in judicial practice
Availability of the safe harbour rule
The safe harbour rule is available in China for determining the civil liability of online platforms for intellectual property infringement. The central logic is that an online platform shall not be liable if it takes necessary measures upon receiving a notice from a right holder that sufficiently identifies infringement. In addition, online platforms are not obligated to conduct prior review.
Article 1195 of the Civil Code of China clearly stipulates the safe harbour principle. Where a network user commits an infringement by using network services, the right holder has the right to notify the network service provider to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking or disconnecting links. The notice shall include prima facie evidence of infringement and the right holder’s true identity information. Upon receiving the notice, the network service provider shall promptly forward the notice to the relevant network user and take necessary measures based on the prima facie evidence and the type of service. If the provider fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the network user for the expanded damages.
The safe harbour rule clarifies the boundary that online platforms are not required to conduct proactive prior review. It is the most commonly applied rule in current intellectual property rights protection involving online platforms in China.
Liability arising from contributory infringement
Contributory infringement is currently the primary form of civil liability borne by online platforms in China. In contrast to liability exemption under the safe harbour rule, this liability focuses on situations where an online platform fails to fulfill reasonable duty of care – specifically, where it wilfully neglects, permits, or assists a network user’s infringing conduct. It mainly applies in two scenarios, covering the vast majority of instances in which online platforms may bear liability for infringement.
Contributory infringement arising from non-compliance with safe harbour rule. If an online platform fails to take necessary measures after receiving a notice from an IP right holder that is sufficient to make it aware of the infringement, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the user for the expanded damages.
However, judicial practice across China shows that cases where online platforms are adjudged to bear joint liability are rare. In practice, when the direct infringer is identifiable, IP right holders often sue online platforms to urge them to stop infringement and to use the online platform as a jurisdictional connecting factor. Many right holders voluntarily dismiss their claims against online platforms or withdraw their lawsuits once infringing links are removed.
Furthermore, it must be clarified that an online platform’s non-compliance with the safe harbour rule merely means it loses the protection of liability exemption provided by the rule; it does not automatically imply that the online platform must bear liability. In judicial practice, establishing such contributory infringement by an online platform typically requires the simultaneous satisfaction of four elements:
Direct infringement: The existence of direct infringement by a network user is established, fully meeting the four elements of general tort liability (fault, act, damage and causation).
Valid notice: The online platform has received a notice from the IP right holder sufficient to make it aware of the infringement.
Failure to act: The online platform failed to take necessary measures in a timely manner as required by law and its own rules.
Expanded damages: The online platform’s failure to take necessary measures resulted in the expansion of the infringement losses.
In a typical online infringement dispute, the Guangzhou Internet Court ruled that the online platform did not bear liability for contributory infringement despite failing to take timely measures in response to a notice. The basic facts of the case are as follows:
Guangzhou Solta Company discovered a video titled “Thermage Anti‑Counterfeiting” on a website operated by Baidu. Solta claimed the video falsely labeled its official account as counterfeit and disclosed its corporate information without investigation. Consequently, Solta complained twice to Baidu, submitting its business license and screenshots. However, Baidu refused to remove the video on the grounds that no infringement was found.
Solta subsequently sued Baidu, demanding an apology, compensation of Rmb50,000 (US$7,330) and disclosure of the uploader’s information. After trial, the court dismissed all claims, and the judgment has taken effect.
Regarding whether Baidu was obligated to remove the content upon Solta’s notice, the court held that the notice‑and‑takedown rule under Article 1195, Paragraph 2, of the Civil Code is a rule for exemption from liability, rather than a rule for establishing liability.
Whether a network service provider is liable for a user’s acts depends on whether the provider constitutes contributory infringement. A prerequisite for establishing contributory infringement is that the complaint-against user has committed a tortious act for which they should be held liable. In other words, only after confirming the user’s infringement can the court assess whether the provider had subjective intent (“should have known” or “knew”) and whether it fulfilled the notice‑and‑takedown obligation.
The court found the video did not infringe Solta’s right to reputation, and Solta’s complaint was unjustified. Therefore, Baidu was not liable for failing to act promptly, and Solta’s claims for apology and damages lacked factual and legal basis.
Contributory infringement based on “knowledge” or “constructive knowledge” (residual application). This scenario serves as a more general clause for online platform contributory infringement. It has a broader application and is not subject to the prerequisite that the right holder must issue a prior notice. Its core legal basis is Article 1197 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that if a network service provider knows or should know that a network user is infringing others’ civil rights and interests through its services but fails to take necessary measures, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the user.
In judicial practice, this type often applies to disputes where the direct infringer is unclear or difficult to hold accountable. The key factual issue is whether the online platform had “knowledge” or “constructive knowledge” of the user’s infringement. While a valid notice from the right holder is the most common and convenient way to prove that the online platform "knew," it is not the exclusive method. “Constructive knowledge” is determined comprehensively based on the online platform’s business model, the popularity of the infringed content, the online platform’s control behavior, etc.
Based on practical conventions, an online platform could be found to have “constructive knowledge” if:
The online platform actively recommends infringing content through algorithms;
The infringed content consists of sports events or films included in the National Copyright Administration’s key works protection warning list;
The infringing goods are commodities with significant brand influence and high market recognition;
The same user or product is a repeated infringer, yet the online platform failed to take necessary measures.
Typically, courts will consider various facts in combination to comprehensively determine whether an online platform possesses constructive knowledge.
Liability arising from direct infringement. Where the online platform is no longer merely a bystander to the infringement but directly commits infringement, the platform will bear independent and full liability.
Article 1194 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates direct infringement liability of online platform: “where network users and network service providers infringe others’ civil rights and interests through the network, they shall bear tort liability, unless otherwise provided by law.”
However, in Chinese judicial practice, cases where online platforms bear direct infringement liability are relatively rare. Typical scenarios include the following:
Directly providing contents: The online platform directly provides infringing content or sells infringing goods. In light of the hybrid nature of contemporary online platforms, liability should be adjudicated based on the specific services provided and the actual acts performed by the platform in question.
Merging conducts of user and platform. This refers to scenarios where the conduct of network users and the platform is indistinguishable. In the precedent case 2024‑13‑2‑158‑004, the adjudication opinions on the factors in determining whether a user’s providing of contents can be attributed to the platform. The factors may include the platform’s nature, the user’s identity and relationship with the platform and the specific infringing acts. For instance, where a relationship of management or control exists between an online platform and a user, and the said user, by virtue of their administrator status, engages in long-term and stable acts such as posting content related to the platform, such acts may be deemed to have been committed by the platform. Notwithstanding the presence or absence of an employment relationship, such conduct shall be treated as that of the platform operator.
In summary, the rules governing civil liability for IP infringement by online platforms in China are categorized into three distinct types: no liability thanks to the safe harbour exemption, joint and several liability arising from contributory infringement and full and independent liability arising from direct infringement. The application of these rules depends largely on the specific role as online platform plays in a given transaction or content dissemination process. As online platform business models become increasingly complex and integrated, with rapid technological advances, the legal assessment of liability will continue to be refined through ongoing judicial practice.
