China’s privay landscape

China’s privacy landscape presents stark contrasts with the U.S. In the U.S., users enjoy a measure of anonymity, often completing online purchases without even logging in. In contrast, China mandates the registration of phone numbers for almost any online service, driven by legal requirements and platforms’ strategies to build robust first-party databases.

While the U.S. retains a relatively decentralized approach to privacy, where data brokers and advertisers freely exchange third-party data, China has erected massive digital “walled gardens.” Platforms like XiaoHongShu and WeChat’s subscription accounts enforce exclusivity by restricting content access to logged-in users, thus amassing extensive first-party data and consolidating market power.

authoritie’s regulation stance

In a landmark case on consumer rights and privacy policies in China, the Shaoxing Keqiao District Court delivered a significant judgment against Shanghai Ctrip, a popular online travel agency. The case is famous and influential.

The case originated from a complaint by Ms. Hu, a “Diamond VIP” loyal user of the Ctrip. She discovered that she had paid significantly more (¥2889 paid) for a hotel room than the listed price (¥1377.63) available directly from the hotel—angrily, she sued Ctrip for allegations of “big data-driven price discrimination” (often colloquially known as “price gouging based on customer familiarity”).

the court’s ruling though

For one part, the court did find that Ctrip was guilty of false advertising, price fraud, and deceptive practices. So Ctrip would bear the legal responsibility of refunding one and compensating three times the amount back to Ms. Hu.

More profoundly, the court supported Ms. Hu’s demands for an app option to disagree with Ctrip’s “Service Agreement” and “Privacy Policy” while continuing usage, or for a revision of these documents to cease non-essential data collection. The court’s decision underscores a critical shift towards user empowerment and stricter oversight on data practices, reflecting an increasing concern for privacy and consumer protection in China.

The original word goes:

Upon downloading the Ctrip APP, users must agree to Ctrip’s “Service Agreement” and “Privacy Policy” to use the app. If they disagree, they are directly exited from the Ctrip APP, effectively denying service and coercing the user. (…)

The [information collected by Ctrip] exceeds what is necessary to process orders, constituting unnecessary collection and use of information, and sharing user information with arbitrarily defined affiliates and business partners for further commercial use, which is both unnecessary and unduly increases the risk associated with the use of personal information.

The plaintiff’s disagreement with the existing “Service Agreement” and “Privacy Policy” is reasonable and should be supported.