[ad_1]
I just learned about this Large Libel Models case from China (to add to the nine U.S. cases I’ve seen, plus others from Norway and Germany); an excerpt from Mengchun Zhang (China IP Case Updates) of JunZeJun Law Offices on May 24, 2026, reporting on a Mar. 12, 2026 decision:
Nanjing Intermediate Court: False AI-Generated Statement that a Lawyer Was Sentenced to Three Years’ Imprisonment Constituted Defamation …
The court distinguished between ordinary search suggestions and AI-generated answers. While search suggestions such as “related searches” were not found infringing, the court found that the relevant “AI Smart Answer” content was generated through Baidu’s AI processing and synthesis of text and images.
The case is significant because the court still found Baidu liable despite its arguments regarding AI hallucination and technological limitations.
At the same time, the judgment did not further elaborate on the specific standards for determining platform fault and the scope of platform duties in AI hallucination cases….
The Nanjing Jiangbei New Area People’s Court ordered Baidu to issue a written apology to Li Xiaoliang.
The court did not support Li’s claims for economic loss or compensation for emotional distress because he failed to provide sufficient evidence of such losses.
Baidu appealed.
In March 2026, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court … upheld the first-instance judgment.
After the judgment became effective, Baidu did not voluntarily perform the judgment. Li Xiaoliang subsequently applied to the court for enforcement.
I e-mailed Mengchun Zhang to see if there have been any further developments, and he helpfully responded that “the enforcement division of the court informed Mr. Li that the enforcement case would soon be formally accepted for enforcement,” so there may be further developments to come.
[ad_2]
Source link
