Hotspots · Analysis

Judged! AI ghostwriting on Xiaohongshu constitutes unfair competition

Currently, sharing daily life details on social platforms has become a habit for many people. "Grass planting" on social platforms has become an important reference for public consumption decisions, and generative AI makes it possible to customize grass planting copy without real experience. On August 7, 2025, the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City made a second instance judgment on a case where an AI writing tool targeted "Xiao Moushu" to generate grass planting content, clarifying the duty of care of application layer AI service providers, denying the absolute defense of "technological neutrality", and drawing a legal red line for the "intelligence for goodness" of the AI industry.

1、 AI 'Grass Planting' Tool Traps Infringement Dispute

The AI writing tool developed by Company B and Company C is specifically designed for the "Little Book" platform with a "grass copy generation function". It imitates the style of the "Little Book" platform to generate false grass content (such as "Little Book" note titles, travel guides, product reviews, etc.), achieving the goal of "confusing the real with the fake", and highlighting "matching the characteristics of Little Book" in promotion; A certain Ding company provides download services for this tool. As of June 2024, the download volume of this tool on its Android version has exceeded 30 million times.

The operator of 'Xiao Moushu', Company A, believes that the core of the 'grass planting economy' lies in 'real sharing' - notes posted by users based on their actual experiences, which is the cornerstone of attracting traffic and building consumer trust on the platform. Such tools undermine the community ecology of "sincere sharing" on the platform, damage the competitive advantage and commercial interests obtained by Company A based on the grass planting content ecology, and also harm the legitimate rights and interests of platform users, disrupt market competition order, and constitute unfair competition.

Company B, Company C, and Company D argue that AI writing tools belong to "technical services" and do not have illegality in themselves. How users use the tools (whether they publish false content) is not related to the tool providers (i.e. the "technology neutrality" theory); This tool not only provides functions for "Xiao Moushu", but also offers other general copywriting generation services, and its overall legitimacy should not be denied just because some functions are questioned.

After the Hangzhou Internet Court decided in the first instance that the defendant constituted unfair competition, the defendant appealed to the Hangzhou Intermediate Court. The second instance court ultimately upheld the core determination, clarifying that the AI tool involved in the case's "targeted copywriting service" for "Xiao Moushu" constituted unfair competition; The "general AI generation function" in the tool does not violate legal regulations and has not been negatively evaluated.

2、 Legal analysis

The core value of this case lies in the fact that the court has for the first time clarified the criteria for determining unfair competition in "application layer generative AI services" and defined the defense boundary of "technology neutrality".

1. Identification of Unfair Competition

Generally speaking, the determination of unfair competition can be considered from three aspects:

(1) The plaintiff has protected competitive interests: Company A's accumulated user trust, traffic advantages, and commercial benefits based on the "real grass planting content ecosystem" belong to the "legitimate competitive interests" protected by law.

(2) The defendant's behavior violates good faith and business ethics: The case involves AI tools specifically designed for the community rules of "Xiao Moushu" (requiring real experience), inducing users to generate false content, essentially "using technological means to evade platform supervision and undermine the foundation of the platform ecosystem", which violates business ethics.

(3) The accused behavior caused substantial damage: false grass planting content will reduce the credibility of platform content, lead to user loss (harm the interests of the plaintiff), mislead consumer decision-making (harm the long-term interests of consumers), and disrupt the fair competition order of the "grass planting economy".

2. Denial of the defense of "technological neutrality"

In practice, AI companies often claim exemption on the grounds of "technology neutrality", but in this case, the court innovatively proposed a four-dimensional review standard, clarifying that "technology neutrality is not an illegal safe haven".

(1) Whether the accused service belongs to generative artificial intelligence services: The accused service tool can automatically generate customized seeding copy, which conforms to the characteristics of generative AI. The technology itself has neutrality, but it needs to be judged based on the application scenario.

(2) Whether the accused service is designed as an application layer for specific scenarios: The accused service tool is specifically designed for the "Little Book" platform, rather than a general writing tool. The service has "targeting" and should respect specific platform rules.

(3) Whether the accused service has clear directionality and inducement: The accused service tool's promotion highlights the "compatibility with the characteristics of Xiao Mou Book" and guides users to use the platform, with the purpose of "adapting to the specific platform's illegal needs", which has subjective fault.

(4) Whether the final accused service belongs to for-profit commercial behavior: The defendant's provision of tool download services is essentially a commercial operation, and the defendant needs to bear a higher duty of care, rather than "free technology sharing".

The court also pointed out that the premise of technological neutrality is "not actively inducing or assisting in illegal activities". If AI services are designed specifically for platform specific rules and functions, and for profit purposes, they have exceeded the scope of "neutral technology" and are subject to illegal liability.

3. Analysis of the "duty of care" of various AI service providers

Another important breakthrough in this case is that the court has clarified the special duty of care for AI service providers at the application layer based on the hierarchical logic of "basic layer, technical layer, and application layer" in the AI industry.

Service providers at the foundational layer (such as algorithm frameworks) and technical layer (such as general models) are only responsible for the security of the technology itself; Service providers at the application layer (such as copywriting tools for "Xiao Moushu" and evaluation generation tools for e-commerce platforms) need to fulfill an additional "scenario specific compliance obligation" - that is, to respect the rules of specific platforms, evaluate the potential illegal risks that the service may cause, and prevent the tools from becoming "accomplices" to infringement or unfair competition.

Specifically in this case, the defendant, as an application layer AI service provider, should have known that "Little Book" prohibits false seeding, but still designed specialized functions to induce users to use them in violation, which constitutes "failure to fulfill basic duty of care" and should bear legal responsibility.

This case provides clear guidance for the compliant development of the generative AI industry, highlighting the need for the AI industry to dynamically balance technological innovation, rights holder interests, consumer interests, and social public interests. Only by utilizing artificial intelligence technology reasonably within the legal framework and finding a balance between innovation and compliance, can the AI industry truly achieve healthy and long-term development.

Industry · New Policies

1. From September 1, 2025, the Measures for the Identification of Artificial Intelligence Generated Synthetic Content jointly issued by the four departments of the State Internet Information Office will be officially implemented

The Measures are jointly issued by the State Internet Information Office, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration of Radio and Television, and will come into force on September 1, 2025.

The Measures require service providers to add explicit identifiers to the generated composite content in accordance with regulations, and to add implicit identifiers in the metadata of the generated composite content files.

In order to implement the requirements of the Measures, Tiktok Co., Ltd. (formerly known as ByteDance Co., Ltd.) released the Announcement of Tiktok on Upgrading AI Content Identification Functions in accordance with relevant laws, regulations and platform rules on September 1, 2025, requiring creators to actively add explicit identification using the identification functions provided by the platform if they produce or publish AI content. If the creator does not actively add a logo, Tiktok will help add a logo description.

On September 8, 2025, the Network Audiovisual Department of the State Administration of Radio and Television issued a management reminder on "Standardizing the Management of Animated Short Dramas"

This "prompt" points out that due to the problem of disorderly dissemination of animated micro dramas, some value biases that have been effectively corrected in live action micro dramas in the past have begun to appear in animated micro dramas, and urgently need to be corrected and standardized.

The "prompt" requires that the dissemination of animated short dramas should comply with the current management regulations for short dramas, implement a classification and hierarchical review system, and implement the management requirements of "review before broadcasting"; The broadcasting platform shall fulfill its main responsibility in the broadcasting process and shall not disseminate programs that have not been reviewed in advance. Strengthen the protection of minors, and their content review should be based on the standards of live action micro dramas, fully considering the healthy growth needs of minors, with stricter standards and more cautious checks.

3. On September 11, 2025, the State Internet Information Office issued the Management Measures for National Cyber Security Incident Report

With the frequent occurrence of various cybersecurity incidents in recent years, the scope of impact and degree of harm continue to escalate. The State Internet Information Office issued the Measures to regulate the management of network security incident reports and clarify the reporting obligations and procedures of network operators.

The Measures consist of fourteen articles, mainly providing normative requirements for the scope of application, regulatory responsibilities, reporting subjects, reporting processes, reporting deadlines, reporting content, etc. of network security incident reporting. By clarifying the reporting subject, process, and timeline, the emergency response capability for network security incidents has been strengthened. At the same time, the Measures clearly stipulate that operators who delay, omit, falsely report or conceal cybersecurity incidents and cause significant harm shall be punished severely in accordance with the law. The Measures will be officially implemented from November 1, 2025.

Team Profile

Gaopeng Film and Television Media Monthly "is compiled by the film and television culture and media business team of Gaopeng Law Firm, aiming to provide the latest industry policies and hot legal issues for enterprises in the film and television culture and media industry to exchange and answer questions. The Gaopeng Film and Television Culture and Media Business Team has been working in the field of cultural and entertainment law for more than ten years. Some lawyers have worked full-time for listed companies in this industry and are familiar with legal issues in various aspects of the film and television culture and media field. The lawyers of Gaopeng Film and Television Culture and Media Business Team have won high praise from clients for their professional theoretical knowledge, profound legal literacy, and rich professional experience. The team lawyers have always adhered to Gaopeng's firm culture of "integrity and professionalism", and are committed to providing dispute resolution and comprehensive legal services for corporate clients in the cultural and entertainment industry.