China court ruling conveys right of user-generated data to internet firms – analysis

文章摘要 杭州铁路运输法院针对爬虫公司快译科技发布禁令,认定腾讯对微信用户生成数据享有合法权利,这一裁判被竞争法律师视为创新性司法决策。法院在裁定中认可互联网企业基于日常维护与数据安全投入而享有数据权益,同时指出快译科技违反robots协议、以商业目的爬取数据且未产生公共利益,难以具备正当性。律师警示,若互联网巨头采取严格数据隔离策略,可能导致互联网碎片化,损害公共信息获取。当前主流搜索引擎无法访问微信公众号内容,用户需跨平台检索,未来亟需立法规范数据政策,法院在数据竞争案件中应平衡企业权益与公共利益。

  • Internet companies’ data right based on investment in maintenance, data security

  • Lawyer warns data protectionism may lead to a divided internet, harming public interests

A March 8 injunction issued against web-crawling firm Kuaiyi Technology by China’s Hangzhou Railway Transport Court has defined internet companies’ right to user-generated data, several competition lawyers told PaRR.

The injunction, sought by Tencent, ordered Kuaiyi Technology to immediately stop providing four products that were based on WeChat data and obtained via the web-crawling technique, including 'Official WeChat account article information application programming interface (API)'; ‘WeChat subscription accounts and latest articles API'; 'Tencent rolling news API'; and 'Official WeChat accounts and corporate identication information within the administrative region', as reported.

Data crawling refers to the collection of data from websites using bots, or autonomous systems on the internet. Focused web crawling refers to information gathering on a specific topic or from a specific website, and a general-purpose web crawler does not have specific targets. A search engine is a typical example of general-purpose web crawler.

The injunction in effect protected Tencent’s right to content published by users on WeChat’s public accounts, Bowen Jing, partner at Guo Biao Law Firm, told PaRR. Jing added that the court’s recognition of internet service providers’ right to usergenerated data is an “innovative judicial decision”.

With the development of big data and articial intelligence, the number of data-related internet-focused unfair competition lawsuits are going to increase, Jing said. And as the range of legal protection over data rights has expanded and become more diverse, requests for injunctions are going to become more prevalent, he added.

Data crawling bots often create a large volume of traffic and block normal user visits, Gang Fu, senior partner at Co-effort Law Firm, told PaRR. Fu added that it is a “positive shift” that the court has recognized the burden caused by data crawling on internet companies’ daily maintenance and data security.

In addition, focused web crawling used by Kuaiyi Technology in the instant case only beneted a small number of people – the data collector, buyers, and analysts – rather than the general public, Fu said.

As Kuaiyi Technology violated WeChat’s robots exclusion protocol and scrapped data for commercial purposes without generating common interests, it is hard to justify its legitimacy, Fu said. The robots exclusion protocol is a standard used by websites to inform web crawlers which areas of the website should not be accessed or scanned.

However, as many internet giants adopt an isolationist strategy in terms of data rights protection, which strictly bans web crawlers’access, it may result in a divided internet and endanger the public interest, Chambers Yang, senior partner at Dentons told PaRR.

Currently, mainstream search engines in China cannot access WeChat public accounts, which have become an important platform for “we-media”, as media published by individual citizens is known, and users have to switch among platforms to search for information, Yang added.

Legislative efforts are required to better regulate internet companies' data policy, Yang said. Before that comes, however, courts are expected to balance the interests of corporates and the public when dealing with data-related competition lawsuits, Yang said.

by Kimberly Jin in Shanghai

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

法院如何认定互联网公司对用户生成数据的权利?

从法律概念与规则看,用户生成数据虽然源于用户发布内容,但互联网公司通过技术投入、日常运营维护以及安全保障措施,对该数据集合的形成与稳定可用性作出实质性贡献,因此法律认可其对数据的正当权益。这种权益并非绝对所有权,而是基于投入产生的排他性利益,可对抗未经许可的商业化爬取行为。n从案件事实与实务场景看,杭州铁路运输法院在腾讯诉快译科技一案中,针对快译科技利用网络爬虫获取微信公众号文章、订阅信息及企业认证信息等四类产品,发布了禁令。法院明确支持腾讯对微信平台用户生成数据的权利主张,认为快译科技的行为损害了腾讯对于数据维护和网络安全的投入,构成不正当竞争的初步证据。律师评价该裁定为创新性司法决策,预示数据权益保护范围正在扩展。n从实务指引与风险提示看,互联网平台应建立完善的数据权限管理体系,保留数据维护和安全投入的凭证,以便在遭遇非法爬取时主张权益。爬虫服务提供者则需严格遵守robots协议,避免对目标网站造成流量负担或安全风险。商业性数据采集若不能证明其促进了公共福利或行业创新,将难以获得司法豁免。

数据爬取行为在何种情况下构成不正当竞争?

从法律概念与规则看,数据爬取本身并不当然违法,搜索引擎依赖通用爬虫技术实现信息索引。但若爬虫违反目标网站设置的robots协议,即绕过访问控制,且爬取数据用于商业牟利,同时未能给公众或原平台带来增量价值,则该行为可能被认定为不正当竞争。判断关键在于爬取是否违背诚实信用原则和商业道德。n从案件事实与实务场景看,快译科技采用了聚焦式爬虫,专门爬取微信公众平台的数据,并将其制作成四个产品对外提供。这些产品的受益者仅限于数据采集方、购买方和数据分析者,而普通公众并未从中获得公共利益。同时,快译科技的行为违反了微信的robots协议,且对微信服务器产生了大量流量负担,干扰了正常用户访问。法院据此认定其行为难以具备正当性,从而支持了腾讯的禁令申请。n从实务指引与风险提示看,从事数据抓取的企业应当先审查目标网站的robots协议和用户协议,确保爬取行为不违反平台规则。同时应评估数据使用的目的:若仅为自用而非向第三方商业化输出,风险较低;若形成面向市场的产品,则需证明该产品创造了新的公共价值或显著提升了资源配置效率。此外,爬虫频率应控制在合理范围,避免对目标服务器造成压力,否则即使数据本身合法,也可能因技术干扰而构成不正当竞争。

数据保护主义对互联网生态有何负面影响?

从法律概念与规则看,数据保护主义指互联网平台对自身数据资源采取封闭隔离策略,拒绝一切外部爬虫访问,甚至屏蔽正常的数据流通。这种策略虽可保护平台商业利益,但可能违反互联互通原则,导致公共信息被分割在孤岛之中,削弱互联网作为信息公共基础设施的功能。n从案件事实与实务场景看,由于微信对数据采取严格限制,中国主流搜索引擎目前无法索引微信公众号的公开内容。微信公众号已发展为重要的‘自媒体’阵地,大量公民表达和公共讨论均发生于该平台。用户若想查找信息,只能在不同应用程序间来回切换,无法通过统一搜索获得全面的结果。律师指出,这种隔离趋势若持续,将导致互联网分裂,最终损害公众对信息的获取自由。n从实务指引与风险提示看,平台企业在制定数据政策时,应当区分个人隐私数据与公开共享数据,对涉及公共属性的内容不宜一概封锁。司法机关在处理数据竞争纠纷时,需平衡企业数据投资与公共利益保护,可通过许可使用、合理收费等替代性方案促进数据流通。立法层面则需明确数据开放义务的边界,防止利用数据垄断阻碍创新,同时建立配套的补偿机制,使企业愿意在保护产权的前提下共享数据。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:https://meetlawyer.com/。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复