Mobile payment generally refers to transactions made through the applications of a portable electronic gadget without the transfer of cash. As one of the most disruptive technologies for finance, mobile payment has been rapidly transforming the traditional financial industry. While it brings important benefits, there are also various risks, in terms of liquidity, security, and data privacy, that call for adequate regulatory responses. As a global financial centre, Hong Kong has gradually established a regulatory framework for mobile payment, addressing the relevant risks with rules on payment and privacy. However, there is still room for further improvement, in terms of measures to deal with cybersecurity issues and strengthen the protection of personal data. The Hong Kong experiences suggest that, to regulate a new and fast-growing industry such as mobile payment, the regulatory regime needs to be improved continuously to alleviate the risk concerns, so as to enhance the protection of financial consumers and society at large.

This paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under the Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasizes the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way as freedom of speech and the protection of personal information do under the laws of the US and the EU, respectively.

Due to their success in routine tasks such as voice recognition, image classification, and text processing, extensive attention has been aroused on how to use artificial intelligence (AI)-based automation tools in the judicial-trial process to improve efficiency. Meanwhile, judicial trial is a complex task that requires accurate insight and subtle analysis of the cases, law, and common knowledge. Applying the results provided by AI-based automation tools directly to the judicial-trial process is controversial due to their irregular logic and low accuracy. Based on this observation, this article investigates the logic underlined in judicial trials and the technical characteristics of AI, and proposes an AI-based semantic assist approach for judicial trials that is logical and transparent to the judges.

As the growing number of cases is draining the limited court resources in China, how to scientifically measure the reasonable saturated workload of judges has become an urgent issue. This issue is the prerequisite of other important topics such as determination of judges’ quotas, measurement of the actual workload of a trial team, performance evaluation of judges, and resource allocation within courts. Data-driven measurement of the actual workload of China’s judges depends on various factors such as local economic development, public transportation, case-load in the past, and staffing of assistant positions. Therefore, traditional approaches that depend only on a single element, such as cause of action, do not work well. We proposed a modelling framework based on big-data and machine-learning technology to more accurately measure the actual workload of judges. This framework extracts the core elements of judicial cases, assigns target workload to the cases based on feedback from judges and analyzing case samples to create a standard training dataset, and trains machine-learning models using the data. A preliminary case-weight calculation model is built using the framework. Besides, the model is continuously evaluated and improved by comparing its output with the actual demand in a court through methods such as sampling, questionnaires, and expert evaluation.

Many studies agree that a weak intellectual property right (IPR) legal system likely reduces innovation or creation; they also predict that increasing intellectual properties (IPs) in developing countries will automatically lead to local needs for stronger formal protection. However, the situation is found to be more complex in China. With a focus on the use of IPs and relevant protection mechanisms in China, this study points out that many companies acquire IPs for purposes that do not depend on their enforcement; many companies have informal ways of protecting their IPs without resorting to court enforcement. Both the alternative functions and the alternative enforcement mechanisms are shaped by industrial characteristics, especially in four aspects: technological features, administrative regulation, market characteristics, and network structure. Based on studies of different industrial sectors in China, this article develops a general framework for analyzing the role of IPRs in industrial practice.

While online dispute resolution (ODR) and online courts have become a global phenomenon, China is unique in its way of constructing a “smart-courts” system. This paper argues that the Chinese smart courts are embedded in China’s larger strategy of capturing new opportunities offered by the information and communications technology (ICT) revolution. Adoption of cutting-edge ICT by courts is not an initiative taken by the courts themselves; rather, it is a call from the party-state with strong policy push. The paper also makes two observations on the nature of smart courts in China. One is that Chinese courts are using ICT, especially artificial intelligence, both to enhance hierarchical control and to improve the formal quality of law. Another is that the “Internet courts” are established to solve disputes arising from online transactions, rather than serve as piloting courts with general implications for the shape of future courts in China. Therefore, while boldly experimenting new technologies (such as blockchains) in the judicial process, Internet courts in China are also charged with the responsibility of developing legal doctrines in cases within their jurisdictions. The case of China thus shows the profound interaction between law and technology. Whether technology is disruptive depends on human design and efforts.