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
相关法律服务
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?
用户生成数据是指用户在平台上发布、上传或产生的内容数据,如微信公众账号文章等。现行法律框架下,数据权益归属并无明文规定,司法实践通常根据平台是否投入运营维护、是否承担安全保障义务来判断。本案法院通过禁令形式,明确互联网公司经过合法收集、存储和管理用户数据后,对该数据享有受法律保护的权益,可以排除他人未经许可的商业利用。这是对数据财产权益的司法确认,属于创新性裁判思路。
本案中,快译科技利用网络爬虫技术抓取微信公众账号文章、订阅账号信息、腾讯新闻等数据,并对外提供四种API产品用于商业用途。杭州铁路运输法院应腾讯申请发布禁令,责令停止相关行为。律师评价该裁判保护了腾讯对用户发布内容的合法权益,并认可了数据爬取给平台带来的维护负担与安全风险。法院并未否认用户自身对内容享有权利,而是确认平台基于运营投入形成的正当利益,与用户权利并行不悖。
对互联网企业而言,应建立数据资产管理制度,留存投入运营、安全防护的记录,以便在数据竞争中主张权益。但须注意,平台数据权利不等于绝对排他权,仍需顾及用户隐私、个人信息保护以及公共利益。对爬虫方而言,未获授权、商业性抓取他人平台数据可能触发禁令,应事前评估robots协议和平台条款,避免陷入不正当竞争纠纷。法院在个案中会权衡多方利益,企业应关注裁判动态调整合规策略。
数据爬取行为在什么情况下构成不正当竞争?
根据反不正当竞争法的一般原则,数据爬取是否构成不正当竞争,需要考察行为是否违反诚实信用原则和商业道德,是否损害经营者合法权益,以及是否扰乱市场竞争秩序。核心判断因素包括:是否违背网站设置的robots协议、是否突破技术措施、是否具有商业牟利目的、是否给平台造成额外负担或安全风险、是否产生公共利益。若爬取行为仅服务于少数人的商业利益,未为社会创造新增价值,则合法性基础薄弱。
本案中,快译科技爬取微信数据后开发API产品出售给数据收集者、购买方和分析者,受众范围有限,并非面向公众的信息服务。其行为违反了微信的robots协议,属于未经许可的访问和抓取。同时,高频爬虫产生大量流量,可能阻塞服务器、干扰正常用户访问,增加平台维护成本与数据安全隐患。法院据此发布禁令,认定其商业目的缺乏正当性。与之相对,搜索引擎等通用爬虫服务公众信息检索,通常具有公共利益考量,不必然构成不正当竞争。
实务中,企业评估数据爬取合规性时,应重点关注目标网站的robots协议、使用条款、登录机制和技术防护手段。爬取数据用于研究、新闻报道等非商业场景相对安全,但若转售、打包或用于竞争性产品,则风险升高。平台方遭遇恶意爬取时,可申请行为保全禁令,及时制止损害扩大,同时收集流量异常、服务器日志等证据。监管趋势表明,数据抓取案件的裁判会越来越注重数据价值分配与竞争秩序维护,各方均应保持克制。
数据保护主义可能带来哪些法律风险?
数据保护主义指互联网企业过度封闭数据,严格禁止爬虫访问,甚至阻碍搜索引擎等合法信息抓取。其法律风险首先表现为公共利益受损,可能构成滥用市场支配地位或损害消费者权益。当平台数据成为重要信息基础设施,拒绝开放可能导致市场分割、用户搜索困难,与《反垄断法》鼓励竞争、保护消费者利益的精神相冲突。此外,封闭数据策略也可能引发数据垄断争议,促使监管机关介入。
文章指出,目前中国主流搜索引擎无法访问微信公众账号,而该平台已成为公民自媒体的重要载体。用户为查找信息不得不在多个平台间切换,增加了搜索成本,降低了信息可及性。律师警告,若大型互联网公司普遍采取隔离主义数据策略,将导致互联网碎片化,最终损害公众知情权。本案禁令虽保护了平台数据权益,但若被其他企业效仿为绝对排他工具,可能加剧数据封锁,形成新的竞争壁垒。司法需要在个案中平衡企业数据权益与公共信息获取。
从风险防范角度,企业在主张数据权益时,应避免将正当保护扩大为绝对垄断。建议建立数据分级分类制度,对核心商业数据严格保护,对公开性、基础性数据保持合理开放。监管机构应推进数据确权立法,明确数据持有者、使用者和公众的权责边界。司法机关在竞争案件中也应审查原告是否利用数据权利排除限制竞争,防止保护主义损害创新。公众和信息服务商可通过举报不公平封闭行为,推动形成开放共享的数据生态。
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




