Product Liability & Safety 2026 Comparisons

“Products” in the context of Chinese law refer to goods that have been processed or manufactured for sale. In China, a combination of laws, regulations and rules issued by the legislative and administrative agencies, as well as interpretations issued by the judicial organs, together form a complicated legal framework regulating product safety. The key legal instruments governing product safety are set out below.

General Laws

General legislation governing product safety includes:

• the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (the “Civil Code”), effective as of 1 January 2021;
• the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Product Quality Law”), effective as of 1 September 1993, amended on 29 December 2018; and
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (PCRI), effective as of 1 January 1994, amended on 25 October 2013.

Sector-Specific Laws

A number of laws and regulations regulate the safety and quality of specific products. These sector-specific instruments include:

• the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Food Safety Law”) (effective as of 1 June 2009, amended on 12 September 2025);
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products (effective as of 1 November 2006, amended on 2 September 2022);
• the Pharmaceutical Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Pharmaceutical Safety Law”) (effective as of 1 July 1985, amended on 26 August 2019);
• the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Import and Export Commodity Inspection (effective as of 1 August 1989, amended on 29 April 2021);
• the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products (effective as of 1 January 2013, amended on 2 March 2019);
• the Regulation on the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (effective as of 1 April 2000, amended on 6 December 2024);
• the Implementing Regulation for the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 20 July 2009, amended on 11 October 2019);
• the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Quality and Safety of Food-Related Products (effective as of 1 March 2023);
• the Measures for the Implementation of the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products (effective as of 1 January 2016, amended on 23 October 2020);
• the Provisions on Administration of Motor Vehicle Emission Recalls (effective as of 1 July 2021);
• the Interim Provisions on Administration of Consumer Product Recalls (effective as of 1 January 2020); and
• the Administrative Measures for Medical Device Recalls (effective as of 1 May 2017).

Product Standardisation

According to the Standardisation Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective as of 1 April 1989, amended on 4 November 2017), the National Standardisation Administration is responsible for administering the standardisation of products. To date, the National Standardisation Administration has released many national standards providing detailed guidelines on the safety assurance of specific products.

Standards in China can be either mandatory or recommended. Standards beginning with “GB” contain mandatory requirements – eg, the Hygienic Standard for Dried Fruits (GB 16325-2005) and the Stipulation Protecting Drivers From Injury by Motor Vehicle Steering Mechanism (GB 11557-2011). The standards beginning with “GB/T” are recommended – eg, the Educational Robots—Safety Requirements and Testing Methods (GB/T 33265-2025) and the Description Specification on the Risk Information of Consumer Products Safety (GB/T 30135-2013).

Under the current product quality regulatory framework in China, administrative authorities exercise two types of regulatory powers: general and specific.

General Regulatory Authority

The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) and local market supervision authorities are responsible for supervising and regulating product quality and safety, covering products manufactured in China and products imported into China. In addition, market supervision authorities are also responsible for the punishment of illegal activities related to product quality. The National Standardisation Administration, as a branch of the SAMR, organises, co-ordinates and supervises the implementation of standards, including standards on product quality and safety.

Regulatory Authority for Specific Products

Other than the general regulatory authority described above, specific regulators also have the power to supervise product safety in the relevant industrial sectors. For example, the National Medical Products Administration is in charge of the supervision and administration of product safety in the drugs, medical devices and cosmetics sector.

Under Chinese law, if a product is found to be defective after it is put into circulation, the manufacturer and the seller must promptly adopt remedial measures or commence corrective actions. Common remedies required by law include suspending sales, providing warnings, and implementing defective product recalls.

Suspending Sales

When a manufacturer or seller identifies defects in its products, it is required by law to suspend manufacturing, sale or importation of the products.

Providing Warnings

A warning refers to a reminder of the relevant dangers associated with the product, or an explanation of how to correctly use the product to avoid these dangers. It is important to direct users’ attention to existing or potential dangers so as to prevent or reduce harm.

Requirements to provide warnings are generally stated in specific product recall regulations. For example, under the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products, the manufacturer of defective automotive products is required to notify automobile owners of the defect in its automobile product and the emergency steps to take to avoid damage or harm.

Implementing Product Recalls

A manufacturer is required to conduct a recall when it is informed, by way of self-check, reports or complaints by the general public, or notification from a regulatory department, that the products it produces or sells are defective. Where the manufacturer fails to conduct a recall, or the relevant quality inspection departments deem it necessary, the regulatory authorities may order a product recall to be conducted. Detailed procedures and requirements for conducting product recalls are usually found in the regulations for specific products as discussed below.

Recall of consumer products

The Interim Provisions on the Administration of Consumer Product Recalls regulate the recall of consumer products. Under the regulations, recall is necessary when defects that could cause unreasonable danger compromising personal and/or property safety are found in the same batch, model number or type of consumer goods, due to issues with the product design, manufacturing, warning, etc. Recall information must be published in a “well-known” publication that is easily accessible to the public. Such well-known publications include newspapers and periodicals, websites, and radio and television channels.

Recall of defective automotive products

The Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products regulate recalls of automotive products. According to these regulations, the SAMR supervises and administers the recall of defective automotive products in China. When defects are found to exist in the same batch, model number or type of automotive product due to issues with product design, manufacturing or labels, a manufacturer must prepare a recall plan, communicate the plan to the automobile sellers, and file the plan with the SAMR. The manufacturer is also required to release recall information in an easily accessible manner to the general public.

In addition, pursuant to the Provisions on Administration of Motor Vehicle Emission Recalls, China has also introduced an emission recall system for motor vehicles, under which vehicle manufacturers are required to recall motor vehicles with “emissions hazards”. The emission recall regime is administered by the SAMR jointly with the Ministry of Ecology and Environment.

Recall of medical devices

Under the Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls, medical device recalls are divided into three classes according to the severity of the defects:

• Class I recall – use of the medical device may cause or have caused serious health hazards;
• Class II recall – use of the medical device may cause or have caused temporary or reversible health hazards; and
• Class III recall – use of the medical device has a lower likelihood of causing a hazard, but such medical device still needs to be recalled.

The different classes of recalls follow different notification time limits, and the recall announcements require different levels of media exposure, according to the class.

The Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls require “medical device manufacturers” (including the medical device registrant or filing holder, or the domestic agent appointed by the overseas manufacturer of imported medical devices) to be responsible for co-ordinating product recalls. However, it should be noted that under the latest Regulation on the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices, the recall obligation explicitly lies with the medical device registrant or filing holder – including those of the imported medical devices.

Where a manufacturer or a seller has discovered a defect in its goods or services, which may harm personal safety or property security, it must immediately report the defect to the relevant administrative authorities. This reporting obligation is widely required in many recall regulations for specific products.

Under the Measures for the Implementation of the Regulation on the Administration of the Recall of Defective Auto Products, upon learning of potential defects in its automobile products, the manufacturer must organise an investigation and analysis thereof, and truthfully report the result to the SAMR. Sellers, repairers, rental service providers or spare part manufacturers are also required to report any defects they identify in their business operation to the SAMR and notify the manufacturer of such information.

Under the current Measures for the Administration of Medical Device Recalls, a medical device manufacturer must immediately report any of its medical device products that are found to be defective to the provincial food and drug supervision and administration department. Medical device operation enterprises and users are also required to immediately report to their provincial food and drug supervision and administration department and notify the manufacturer or supplier of defects. In particular, if the medical device user is a medical institution, it must also report device defects to its provincial health administrative department. Please also note that, as discussed in 1.3 Obligations to Commence Corrective Action, while the measures impose the recall duty on the “medical device manufacturer”, the latest Regulation on the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices uniformly requires “medical device registrants and filing holders” to bear the ultimate recall duty. In other words, for imported medical devices, the corresponding foreign registrant or filing holder is also subject to the recall duty.

Failure to comply with product safety obligations may give rise to civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities.

Civil Liability

As further discussed in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, in the case of a breach of product safety obligations, the relevant party, depending on the circumstances of the case, may file a contractual or tort claim, requesting repair or replacement of, or a refund for, the product, or compensation for that party’s losses.

In addition, according to the PCRI, consumers may further claim punitive damages when (i) the merchant intentionally engages in fraud; and (ii) in cases of product defects, the manufacturer or seller knowingly continues to manufacture or sell the defective products, or fails to take effective remedial measures, and the defect results in death or serious damage to the health of another person.

For cases concerning the quality of food or drugs, as provided by sector-specific regulations, the plaintiffs may also seek punitive damages against the manufacturers and sellers of the substandard products. The amount of the punitive damages will be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative Penalties

According to the Product Quality Law, the PCRI and other sector-specific rules, the regulatory authorities may impose administrative sanctions on manufacturers and sellers when their product fails to conform to product safety standards, including by requesting rectification of defects, imposing fines, ceasing the operation, and revoking the business licence.

In addition, the manufacturer and seller might also be subject to administrative penalties if they do not perform their product recall obligations. For example, where an automobile manufacturer breaches the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products by failing to stop manufacturing the products, selling or importing defective auto products, withholding information about the defects or refusing to implement a recall as ordered, the regulatory authorities may order it to make correction, impose a fine of 1–10% of the monetary value of the defective products, and confiscate any illegal gains.

Criminal Penalties

If the products are found to have caused death, serious personal injury, or serious property damage, the responsible manufacturers and sellers may be criminally liable.

The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Criminal Law”) (effective as of 1 October 1997, with 12 amendments so far) addresses crimes related to product quality. In particular, Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Criminal Law contains a section titled “Crimes of Manufacturing and Selling Fake and Shoddy Goods”. This section specifically provides strict criminal penalties in respect of the manufacturing and selling of fake or defective products, particularly food and drugs, that severely infringe upon consumers’ interests.

For example, in one criminal case, the defendant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 years and ordered to compensate for medical fees, nursing fees, funeral expenses and other costs of the victim’s family for knowingly selling counterfeit medicines, which caused the death of the victim (see Case (2018) Liao 02 Xing Chu No 59, decided by Dalian Intermediate People’s Court, Liaoning Province).

Causes of Action

Under the Tort Chapter of the Civil Code, “product liability” exclusively refers to tort liability due to damage caused by product defects. However, for the purposes of this guide, unless otherwise specified, “product liability” should be construed as encompassing a wider range of legal consequences related to product quality, covering civil, administrative and criminal liabilities or penalties.

For administrative and criminal penalties, please see 1.5 Penalties for Breach of Product Safety Obligations. This section examines in greater detail the civil liabilities arising from defective products, as well as procedural issues in civil litigation.

Contractual claims over product non-conformity

Firstly, a buyer can bring a claim against the seller in respect of the non-conformity of products – ie, that the product does not conform to the applicable quality standards or specifications presented. Specifically, the buyer (or consumer) may request repair, replacement or refund of the product, and compensation for any further losses caused, if a product falls within one of the following categories:

• the product does not have the properties required for use and the buyer (or consumer) has not been informed of the flaws in advance;
• the product quality does not conform to the standards specified on the product or its packaging; or
• the product does not meet the quality stated in the instructions for use or demonstrated via samples provided.

The non-conformity of products may pertain to not only defects that threaten the safety of personal life or property, but also flaws to a lesser degree. A claim based on such non-conformity is, by nature, a contractual claim since the seller breaches the contract by selling products that fail to meet the quality standards or specifications agreed upon by the parties. In the case of product non-conformity, the consumer may further claim punitive damages if the merchant intentionally engages in fraud (see 1.5 Penalties for Breach of Product Safety Obligations).

Tort claims over product defects

Secondly, any injured party harmed by a defective product may bring a tort claim against the product manufacturer and/or seller. In addition to property damage and personal injury/physical harm, the injured party may also claim compensation for mental distress if the defective product causes “severe mental damage”.

Under Chinese law, in cases of product defects, product liability borne by the manufacturer is a form of strict liability, which means that the manufacturer is liable for damage regardless of whether there is any fault on their part. The seller, on the other hand, is liable for damage only if it is at fault for the injury or loss. However, the injured party may bring claims directly against the manufacturer or the seller, without establishing their fault. If the fault ultimately lies with the manufacturer, the seller may ask the manufacturer to reimburse its losses after it compensates the plaintiff. If the product defect is caused by the fault of a third party – such as a transporter – the manufacturer or seller, after compensating the injured party, may seek reimbursement from that third party for the losses incurred.

Accordingly, to bring a tort claim for product defects, the injured party is required to establish not the fault of the product seller or manufacturer, but the following three elements:

• the defect of the product;
• the damage or loss suffered; and
• the causal relationship between the defective product and the damage.

Among these elements, the most important condition is whether a product is defective. Product defects typically fall into three types: design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings or instructions. As noted in the Civil Code, even if the safety defect has not yet resulted in actual damage, the infringed party has the right to request the elimination of the hazard, which may take the form of suspension of manufacturing/sales, product repair, or product recall.

According to Article 46 of the Product Quality Law, two tests serve to determine the existence of a product defect:

• a statutory standard, which considers a product to be defective if it fails to meet one of the applicable national or industry standards on personal or property safety; and
• in the absence of applicable statutory standards, an “unreasonable danger” standard, which considers a product to be defective if it unreasonably endangers the life or property of the consumer.

In practice, even if a product meets the relevant national or industry standard, the court will still proceed to examine whether it meets a reasonable person’s expectations regarding product safety. Therefore, compliance with the statutory standard alone does not necessarily guarantee that the product is defect-free.

Sources of Law

In the context of civil disputes, the following key legal instruments governing product liability allow the victim to raise contractual or tort claims against the product seller and/or manufacturer:

• the Civil Code;
• the PCRI; and
• the Product Quality Law.

Over the years, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) has also issued a series of judicial interpretations in relation to specific issues arising in product liability cases. These judicial instruments guide courts in their interpretation of key statutory definitions and concepts.

Since China is a civil law country, the principle of stare decisis does not apply in product liability litigation. However, judges may still be guided by precedents, particularly if found in judgments of the SPC or other superior courts addressing similar facts or legal issues, or if the area of law is unsettled. Among these judgments, “Guiding Cases”, as designated by the SPC or the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, are of precedential value and should be referenced and followed by courts when adjudicating similar cases.

Apart from civil liability, product quality disputes may also give rise to administrative liabilities, as provided under the Product Quality Law, the PCRI and other laws and regulations for specific products. Separately, as discussed in 1.5 Penalties for Breach of Product Safety Obligations, the Criminal Law also sets out criminal penalties in cases where the product quality issue has resulted in severe and far-ranging consequences.

In China’s legal system, consumers and other infringed individuals or entities have standing to bring claims for product liability if their rights or interests are impaired. Specifically, an individual or entity can file a lawsuit against the manufacturer or seller in court based on a contractual relationship or an act of infringement.

Multiple injured individuals involved in a product liability case may have standing to bring representative litigation. If the number of injured individuals is unspecified, the court could publish an announcement to notify potential plaintiffs to register as plaintiffs. The registered plaintiffs can nominate co-plaintiffs to be their representatives and participate in the litigation on their behalf. The judgment issued in these cases will bind all registered plaintiffs. If unregistered parties file additional claims, the original judgment will apply and bind the unregistered parties in those claims as well.

Lastly, public interest institutions, organisations or the state procuratorate may file public interest litigation when the legitimate rights or interests of multiple consumers have been harmed. For example, the China Consumers Association and consumer associations at the provincial level are eligible to initiate a public interest litigation in consumer disputes. An amendment to the Civil Procedure Law in 2017 introduced the new mechanism of public interest prosecution, allowing the procuratorate to prosecute a case relating to food and drug safety if there is no relevant institution or organisation with the power to file public interest claims, or the relevant institution or organisation does not file a claim.

According to the Civil Code, the statute of limitation for product liability claims – either contractual or tort – is three years. The limitation period is calculated from the day when the plaintiff (eg, the consumer or other infringed individuals) knew or should have known the identity of the respondent and that their right had been infringed. In any event, the court will not offer protection to the plaintiff if 20 years have elapsed since the infringement took place. Nevertheless, under special circumstances, the court may decide to extend the period upon the application of the plaintiff.

According to the Civil Procedure Law, a product liability dispute must meet the following prerequisites:

• the plaintiff is a citizen, legal person or any other organisation with a direct interest in the case;
• there is a specific defendant; and
• the plaintiff has made a specific claim supported by facts and reasons.

In addition, the plaintiff has to file the claim before the court that has jurisdiction (see 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought).

To date, there are no mandatory pre-litigation procedures under Chinese law. Pre-trial preservation of evidence, which is an optional pre-action procedure, is explained in 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims.

If any evidence may be lost or subsequently become hard to obtain, a party to the dispute can apply for the court to issue an evidence preservation order, either during the proceedings or before the litigation is filed under urgent circumstances (the latter is also known as pre-trial preservation of evidence).

Evidentiary preservation measures ordered by the court may include making copies in advance, sealing evidence or taking other actions to preserve evidence, depending on the format and location of the evidence in individual cases. The court may impose a fine or detain anyone who forges or destroys important evidence, or it may adopt a presumption of fact against a party found to have breached the rules.

Unlike common law jurisdictions, there is no general process of document production during civil litigation in Chinese courts. Except where the burden of proof is specifically allocated elsewhere (see 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases), each party bears the evidentiary burden of proving its claims.

However, if a party and its representative find it difficult to obtain a particular piece of evidence due to objective difficulties, that party may apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection. For example, in product quality disputes, if the consumer is unable to obtain a vital inspection report regarding product defects kept by the product manufacturer, the consumer could apply to the court to collect the report from the manufacturer.

In addition, if a party refuses to provide evidence without any proper justification, despite indications that the evidence is in its possession, and the other party bearing the burden of proof for a particular fact claims that the evidence is unfavourable to the party that possesses it, a court may presume that the relevant claim has been established.

To resolve technical issues in a product liability dispute, the court may instruct a qualified institution or person to inspect and test the product in detail upon application by a party or on its own motion. The person responsible for the inspection may be present during the hearing to give testimony on the results of inspection, upon the application of a party or if the court considers it necessary to hear the testimony. The judge hearing the proceedings may pose questions to the expert, and any party may cross-examine the expert. Either party may also introduce other experts to provide professional opinion on the inspection or other technical issues during the hearing. Where permitted by the court, experts may address each other regarding issues arising in the proceedings.

For contractual claims arising from non-conformity of products, the plaintiff normally bears the burden of proving that the product purchased does not conform to the applicable standards or specifications as presented by the merchant.

For tort claims due to product defects, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that:

• the product is defective;
• damage or loss occurred; and

• a causal relationship exists between the defect and the damage suffered.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

To the defendant

For contractual claims arising from product flaws that do not involve a safety hazard, according to the PCRI, if a consumer discovers such a flaw within six months of receiving durable goods such as motor vehicles, computers, televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners and washing machines, the respondent shall bear the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the flaw does not exist.

For tort claims concerning product defects, the plaintiff usually has limited technical knowledge about the product in dispute. Out of consideration for fairness, courts will generally not impose overly stringent evidentiary burdens concerning the product defect and its causal relationship to the plaintiff’s loss or damage. As long as the plaintiff can present prima facie evidence that the product may be defective and damage occurred, the court tends to shift the burden of proof to the manufacturer or seller to prove that the product is not defective. For this purpose, the defendant will usually need to prove that the product meets the national and industry standards (if any), does not present any unreasonable danger to a person’s health, and will not damage a person’s property.

The “presumptive approach”

The same is true in demonstrating the causal relationship between the defect and the damage incurred. Given the difficulty for ordinary consumers to establish an unequivocal causal relationship, the plaintiff is usually only expected to prove the existence of a “connection” between the injury or damage and the defect. When this has been done, the courts usually take a “presumptive approach” and establish the causal relationship when there is a high possibility that the defect is the cause of the injury.

The inspection procedure

In practice, the inspection procedure plays an important role in determining the existence of product defect and causation. A party may apply to a court for an inspection to determine whether a product is defective or the cause of the injury. The inspection will be conducted by inspection institutions with appropriate qualifications or by judicial inspection institutions, which are either appointed based on an agreement between the parties or designated by the court. If necessary, the court may also decide to appoint an inspection institution on its own motion. As mentioned in 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases, the plaintiff or the defendant may also apply to introduce an expert to give an opinion on the inspection opinion.

Courts and Procedures

There are no special courts or procedures for product liability cases. However, if a product liability dispute is relatively simple and the amount in dispute is relatively small, a simplified procedure or small claims procedure may apply. These two types of procedures are more flexible and are concluded more quickly than the normal procedure for civil litigation. In addition, the judgment or ruling of the first instance court in a small claims procedure is final and not subject to appeal.

District Jurisdiction

In a contractual dispute the parties may, by written agreement (subject to the statutory rules on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction), select the court at the place of:

• the domicile of the defendant;
• the signing or performance of the contract;
• the domicile of the plaintiff;
• the location of the subject matter; or
• any other place with an actual connection to the dispute.

In the absence of a prior agreement of the parties, the court at the place of the domicile of the defendant or where the contract is performed will have jurisdiction over the case.

Product liability claims based on tort are under the jurisdiction of the court at the place where the tortious act occurred or the domicile of the defendant. In addition, courts in places where the disputed products are manufactured or sold also have jurisdiction over such claims. Accordingly, the infringed party may file the lawsuit with any of the competent courts.

Specifically, the place where the tort occurred includes the place where the tortious conduct was committed and the place where the consequences of the tortious conduct occurred. If the manufacturer and seller are domiciled in China, the Chinese courts will, without a doubt, have jurisdiction over the proceedings. If the manufacturing and selling take place outside China, the manufacturer and seller may still fall under the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts if the damage occurs within China.

Hierarchical Jurisdiction

Depending on the amount in dispute, a civil dispute may be heard by courts at different levels including district courts, intermediate courts or high courts. The precise threshold for each level of court to hear a case varies by region. In practice, since the underlying amount in product liability cases is relatively small, these cases are usually heard by the district courts.

The “People’s Juror”

Since China has a legal system based on civil law, there is no trial by jury in Chinese courts. However, there is a “People’s Juror” system, by which a non-judge citizen can serve on the hearing panel in a case governed by normal procedure, with the same power as a judge. The juror can participate in fact-finding, the application of law and the decision-making process.

The rules for appeal in product liability disputes are the same as in other civil proceedings governed by the Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretations. The judgments or certain rulings made by the court of first instance may be appealed on grounds including fault in fact-finding, incorrect application of laws, and serious procedural violations.

Once the court of first instance delivers the ruling or judgment, either party may file an appeal with the People’s Court at the higher level within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, or ten days from the date of service of the ruling. The appellate court may decide to uphold, withdraw or revise the original ruling or judgment, or remand the case back to the lower court.

Under Chinese law, the defendant in a product liability dispute can raise procedural and substantive defences.

In contractual claims arising from product flaws that do not pose a safety hazard, the seller may argue that the buyer (or consumer) was explicitly informed of such a flaw and therefore the seller should be exempt from liability for breach of contract.

In tort claims over damage caused by product defects, product quality laws and regulations outline the following three statutory defences under which a manufacturer may be exempt from liability:

• the products have not been put into circulation;
• the defects did not exist when the products were put into circulation (in other words, the manufacturer can demonstrate that the defect was caused by the victim or other third parties); and
• the scientific and technological standards at the time the product was put into circulation did not enable the manufacturer to detect the defect in the product.

Additionally, as outlined in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of proving three elements in a tort claim (ie, defects, injuries or damage, and a causal relationship between these). A defendant may also avoid liability by successfully challenging any of these three elements. In legal practice, defendants in general tend to challenge the existence of “defects” and a “causal relationship”.

Regulatory requirements, especially national standards, play an important role in deciding product liability cases. As stated in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, “defect” is one of the three elements necessary for the establishment of tort. Compliance with national standards is one of the criteria for courts to determine whether a product is defective.

Under the Product Quality Law, where a product is covered by national or industry standards for the protection of health, personal safety or the safety of property, the term “defect” includes non-compliance with those standards. Similarly, sector-specific regulations also refer to non-compliance with national standards as one of the criteria for defects. For example, the Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automotive Products provide that products that do not meet the national or industry standards on personal and property safety are considered defective.

That said, regulatory compliance is only a bottom line in product liability disputes. Products that meet the national or industry standards or other administrative requirements are not automatically considered “free from defects”. They also have to meet a reasonable person’s expectations regarding safety (see 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law and 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims for further details).

In China, a court fee is calculated in proportion to the amount of the claim and must be paid before the hearing by the plaintiff to the court in all cases (including product liability cases), unless the plaintiff applies for a postponement, reduction or exemption of the court fee and the court permits this.

The court will decide the allocation of the court fee between the parties in the final judgment, as well as other fees such as expert costs and inspection fees. Such fees are usually allocated to the losing party. As for attorneys’ fees, the court usually considers whether the losing party should bear such costs based on the specific facts of the case, taking into account whether the parties had already reached an agreement on this matter in their contract and whether the attorneys’ fees could be classified as a reasonable expense.

Litigation Funding

No statutory litigation funding system is currently established in China. It is also difficult to receive legal aid in product liability cases. In practice, however, specific state-supported funding is available for public interest litigation (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims) for parties who cannot afford the cost of litigation.

By law, a court can, after investigating the situation, decide to exempt, reduce or postpone the court fee upon application if it finds that a party is financially disadvantaged and has genuine difficulties in paying court fees. Eligible applicants include disabled persons without a steady source of income, persons on minimal welfare benefits, and persons affected by natural disasters or other types of force majeure. In particular, victims of product quality accidents are allowed to apply for postponement of court fees.

Contingency Fees

In civil cases involving property, which covers most product liability disputes, a contingency fee can be agreed upon between attorneys and clients.

To date, China’s legal system has not provided for class actions as they exist, for example, in the USA. However, China does allow public interest litigation and representative litigation when a product quality dispute affects multiple individuals (see 2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims).

In practice, much public interest litigation in China is filed by procuratorates. As an example, a procuratorate in Guangdong province commenced litigation against two individuals for selling pork that did not meet the food safety regulatory requirements and impairing public health. The People’s Court supported all the claims of the procuratorate and ordered the two defendants to remedy the damage caused by their products (by making payments to the State Treasury) and apologise to the public in the newspaper (see Case (2019) Yue Min Zhong No 379 decided by the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province). More recently, China is also exploring ways to encourage consumer associations to initiate public interest litigation, with local procuratorates providing the necessary support during the proceedings (see 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims).

There have been many published decisions concerning product liability in China recently. The cases discussed below – concerning generative artificial intelligence, automated driving, public interest litigation, punitive damages and product defects – are significant for judicial practice, especially the interpretation of key concepts and resolution of new issues arising from emerging technologies.

Product Liability Not Applicable to Generative Artificial Intelligence Services

On 29 December 2025, Hangzhou Internet Court of Zhejiang Province published a typical case, underscoring that generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) should not be considered a “product”, and therefore the strict liability rules for product liability in tort should not apply.

As the case brief reveals, a user of a GenAI tool inquired about requirements for applying for a college, but was provided with inaccurate information. The user alleged that the false information supplied by the GenAI produced a misleading effect, caused damage, and requested the service provider to compensate for the losses they suffered.

The question before the court was whether tort disputes concerning GenAI services should be subject to general tort rules or product liability rules. The court held that GenAI is not a “product” and product liability rules do not apply, because GenAI does not serve any concrete or specific purpose and could not be practically tested based on any quality standards. The court observed that application of strict liability could unreasonably burden the GenAI service provider. The court further noted that the content generated by the GenAI should also not be subject to product liability rules, given that the service provider could not properly foresee or control the content generated and such content does not normally pose a high risk.

Therefore, the court applied the general tort rules and assessed whether the service provider was at fault for the inaccurate information provided by the GenAI tool. The court followed a three-factor test: (i) whether the service provider conducted strict review of illegal content; (ii) whether it provided explicit disclaimers on limitations of GenAI tools; and (iii) whether it adopted practical measures to improve accuracy of the information generated. The court then found that the service provider properly fulfilled its duty of care and had no fault for the misinformation. Therefore, the court dismissed the claims, and the decision was not appealed by either party.

Determination of Product Defects in Automated Driving

Since the establishment of the “People’s Court Case Database”, several product liability cases have been selected as “Cases for Reference”, indicating their referential value in adjudication. Recently, two cases concerning the application of the unreasonable danger standard in determining product defects of driver assistance systems in automated driving have been added to the database.

In (2021) Xiang 1202 Min Chu No 7684 (decided by Hecheng District Court, Huaihua), a consumer purchased an electric vehicle (EV) relying on the marketing claims made by the merchant concerning the functions of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system. However, the consumer later found that the AEB system of the EV faced substantial limitations when being used, which failed to meet the promise made in the marketing materials. Despite the seller’s disclaimer made in the product manual stating that the AEB system was for driver assistance and could not replace the driver, the court held that the system could not meet the “consumer’s reasonable expectations for product safety” and therefore posed an “unreasonable danger”. Accordingly, the EV was considered defective.

In (2023) Su 12 Min Zhong No 1090 (decided by Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu), the court faced another product defect claim concerning an AEB system. After investigation, the court found that the AEB system indeed had its limitations, as it was unable to detect certain targets in specific scenarios, and the user manual clearly informed consumers of this risk. The court considered that the technical limitations, being clearly notified to users, did not constitute an unreasonable danger and the product was not defective.

The above two cases demonstrate that for emerging technologies, in the absence of applicable safety standards, courts may assess the “consumer’s reasonable expectations for product safety” based on the marketing claims, product manuals, disclaimers, and technological development. Courts tend to adopt a more prudent approach when assessing the safety expectations of consumers, and technical limitations clearly notified to consumers in advance may not be viewed as defects.

Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Procuratorate

On 15 March 2026, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and China Consumers Association jointly issued typical cases regarding public interest litigation for protection of consumer rights, one of which concerns litigation brought by the Xi’an People’s Procuratorate of Shaanxi Province.

According to the case brief, a seller from Xi’an procured and sold protein powder which did not contain sufficient nutrients as required by applicable standards. After accepting this case, the procuratorate conducted thorough investigations and found that the seller had been procuring these products at unreasonably low prices compared with the average prices of the market, suggesting that the merchant “should know” that the products sold did not meet the food safety standards. The procuratorate later initiated public interest civil litigation against the seller before the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court, which later ordered the seller to issue a public apology, recall the products in question and pay punitive damages of around CNY4.5 million. The appellate court upheld the decision.

Public Interest Litigation Commenced by the Consumer Association and Supported by the Procuratorate

On 15 March 2025, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, together with China Consumers Association, released a collection of public interest litigation cases aimed at promoting the protection of consumer interests.

One of these model cases concerns civil public interest litigation initiated by the Shanghai Consumer Council and supported by the local procuratorate. According to the case brief, the consumer council brought proceedings against a seller of electronic cigarettes who violated the mandatory standards by adding additional flavours to the products, thereby increasing the risks of addiction and harm to human health. Notably, under a collaborative framework, the Shanghai Procuratorate supported the Shanghai Consumer Council in collecting evidence and filing a lawsuit, aiming to empower the consumer council in bringing public interest litigation. Ultimately, the court successfully concluded mediation, with the respondent making a public apology and paying public interest damages equal to its illegal gains to a specialised fund for consumer public interest litigation.

In addition to trends reflected in the typical cases discussed in 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims, recent legislative updates on product liability and product safety policy are as follows.

Emphasis on Recall Duties in E-commerce Scenarios

On 13 June 2025, the SAMR released the Notice on Strengthening Regulation of Recall of Consumer Goods Sold Online. This Notice further clarifies the recall duties imposed on merchants operating on e-commerce platforms as well as the platform operators.

According to the notice, merchants operating on e-commerce platforms are obliged to set up mechanisms for collection and analysis of product defect information, suspend sales upon receiving recall orders, and put up notices on their webpages when found to be selling defective products. On the other hand, the e-commerce platform operators must also take the necessary measures to ensure that defective products are no longer being sold on their platform once informed of the notices on product recall, and must co-operate with regulators to conduct the recall.

Clarification on Scope of Compensable Property Damage Covered by Product Liability Claims

The SPC released a new judicial interpretation on the tort liability section of China’s Civil Code on 25 September 2024, which became effective on 27 September 2024. Importantly, this interpretation clarifies that the “property damage” claimed by the buyer in product liability tort claims includes not just damage caused to “other property” but also damage caused to the “defective product itself”.

This understanding, which aligns with the legal spirit of the new Civil Code, takes precedence over the old Product Quality Law, under which property damage caused by product defects in tort claims only covers properties “other than” the defective product itself. Originally, consumers were required to file a contractual claim to recover damage to the defective product itself, and a separate tort claim to seek compensation for damage to other properties. By adopting the new interpretation, legislators intend to simplify the filing of lawsuits by consumers and save judicial resources. Under the new approach, for disputes involving product defects, consumers may simply file one tort claim to cover damages to both the defective product itself and any other property damaged by the product.

Elaboration of Punitive Damages Rules in Food and Drugs Cases

On 22 August 2024, the SPC officially adopted an interpretation on punitive damages in foods and drug disputes. Key highlights include the following.

• Courts shall support punitive damages claims by ordinary consumers purchasing food for personal or family needs. The amount of punitive damages is calculated based on the actual payment made for the product.
• Non-professional purchasing agents (daigou) do not bear punitive damages liability. Professional purchasing agents who unintentionally sell substandard products may seek compensation from the manufacturer after paying punitive damages to the buyer.
• If the consumer brings a punitive damages claim based on violations of the Food Safety Law or Pharmaceutical Safety Law but the court finds no such violation other than consumer fraud, the consumer may change their claim to seek punitive damages for consumer fraud, as per the PCRI.
• For buyers who knowingly purchase substandard food or repeatedly purchase the same product within a short period, courts may only support their punitive damages claim on the basis of the quantities necessary for household use. Moreover, business operators shall bear the burden of proof if they argue that the buyer knowingly purchased the substandard food.
• Courts shall reject punitive damages claims by buyers who fabricate facts and threaten tip-offs or lawsuits. Such buyers shall also be held liable for acting in bad faith.
• Further, the new interpretation also provides guidelines on punitive damages claims resulting from errors in product labels or manuals. For example, courts may dismiss punitive damages claims due to clerical errors that do not cause misleading effects.

Introduction of New Rules to Further Protect Consumer Rights

On 15 March 2024, China introduced the Implementation Rules on the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, which came into force on 1 July 2024. The new rules have elaborated on the following aspects concerning product quality.

Duty to ensure product safety

The new rules require business operators to ensure the safety of the products or services provided, including those offered free of charge in the form of prizes, gifts or samples. Moreover, business operators shall notify consumers if such free products or services have flaws that do not contravene mandatory rules or affect their normal performance.

Calculation of warranty period

Under the new rules, the warranty period for return, replacement and repair as agreed between the business operator and the consumer shall not be shorter than any statutory rules. In general, the warranty period shall start from the date when the product is delivered to the consumer or the service is completed. Where the business operator has performed its replacement duty, the warranty period shall be reset, starting from the date of the completion of the replacement.

Expansion of the mandate of consumer associations

In addition to responsibilities set out in the PCRI, the new rules grant an additional mandate to consumer associations. Consumer associations may hold talks with the business operators or industrial organisations on consumer protection issues. They are also mandated to carry out investigations on infringement of consumer rights and require the business operators to submit statements and evidentiary materials.

Determination of consumer fraud

While the new rules reiterate the compensation for consumer fraud, it is also clarified that such fraud does not cover the circumstance in which the flaws in markings or labels, manuals or promotional materials will not impact the quality of products or services, nor mislead consumers. Further, the new rules stipulate that punitive damages for fraud do not apply to those intending to obtain compensation through fraudulent acts. In this respect, administrative and criminal penalties (if any) shall be imposed on such bad-faith entities.

The general tendency in product liability, as outlined in 3.1 Trends in Product Liability and Product Safety Policy, is to extend the level of protection to consumers while maintaining a more balanced approach in protecting the legitimate interests of business operators. Based on the latest legislative and judicial practice discussed in the previous sections, future policy directions in product liability and product safety are expected to focus on the following aspects:

• exploring the applicability of product liability rules in disputes concerning emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and automated driving;
• clarifying the standards for determining product defects;
• increasing the use and function of punitive damages in product liability cases while ensuring that bad-faith consumers do not profit from punitive damages claims;
• enhancing collaboration between procuratorates and consumer associations in public interest litigation, and exploring approaches for effectively using public interest compensation in such cases; and
• strengthening the oversight of high-risk product categories, including food, drugs and infant products.