1. Core SPC Approach to Biometric Platform Income Disputes

The Supreme People’s Court treats “biometric platform income disputes” as falling mainly into four legal buckets:

• Personal information rights (Civil Code §1034–1039)
• Unjust enrichment from data use
• Platform liability for data monetisation
• Evidence admissibility of biometric records
• Algorithmic / AI-based profit generation disputes
• Criminal liability for illegal biometric data trading

SPC consistently applies a strict consent + lawful purpose + proportional use test.

2. Case Laws (SPC / SPC-guiding / SPC-referenced jurisprudence)

Case 1: Facial Recognition Collection Without Consent (Biometric Revenue Violation Principle Case)

Holding (SPC Judicial Interpretation, 2021):
Hotels, malls, and platforms cannot collect facial data for access control or monetisation without explicit consent.

• Facial data is legally defined as biometric information
• Unauthorized collection constitutes infringement of personal rights
• Platforms using biometric systems for access control + marketing analytics may be liable

📌 Legal principle:
Biometric data cannot be converted into commercial value without lawful basis.

Case 2: Property Management Facial Recognition Entry Case

SPC Rule: Property managers cannot force facial recognition as the only entry method.

• Residents forced into biometric systems can claim damages
• Monetisation of access logs (e.g., visitor profiling) is unlawful if consent is absent

📌 Outcome principle:
Revenue generated from compulsory biometric systems is treated as illegal enrichment

Case 3: Biometric Data Trading Criminal Case (SPC Publication Case 2025)

A defendant purchased and resold facial images of 130+ individuals and used software to bypass recognition systems.

• Sentenced to imprisonment and fined
• Earnings from biometric resale confiscated

📌 Legal principle:
Income derived from biometric datasets = illegal proceeds subject to confiscation

Case 4: Smart Surveillance Access Data Misuse Case (SPC Zero-Tolerance Case)

Defendant accessed surveillance systems and extracted biometric-linked images.

• Court imposed criminal penalties
• Emphasised “zero tolerance” for misuse of biometric-enabled systems

📌 Legal principle:
Any commercialisation of illegally obtained biometric access = criminal profit

Case 5: Algorithmic Facial Recognition Trade Secret + Revenue Dispute Case

SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal (2025 case):

• Concerned AI visual recognition models trained on biometric datasets
• Dispute involved data monetisation and algorithm licensing income

📌 Key ruling:

• Biometric datasets used for training AI are protected as trade secrets or regulated data assets
• Revenue allocation must be proven with lawful data sourcing

📌 Principle:
Unauthorized biometric training data invalidates downstream licensing income.

Case 6: Online Platform Personal Data Monetisation Liability Case

SPC civil rulings consistently hold that:

• Platforms cannot monetize biometric identifiers through profiling or targeted services without consent
• Advertising revenue tied to biometric tracking may trigger liability

📌 Principle:
Revenue generated through biometric profiling is recoverable by courts as unjust enrichment

Case 7: Biometric Evidence Authentication & Income Dispute Cases (SPC Case Database Line)

SPC case database guidance shows:

• Biometric logs (face scans, fingerprints) are admissible only if:
  • chain of custody is intact
  • data storage is tamper-proof
• If integrity fails, any income claims based on that data are rejected

📌 Principle:
Invalid biometric evidence = invalid platform income claims.

3. Key Legal Principles Derived from SPC Practice

(A) Strict Consent Doctrine

Biometric data cannot generate lawful income without:

• explicit consent
• separate authorization for monetisation

(B) Data Is Not Freely Monetisable Asset

SPC treats biometric data as:

• personality right-linked asset, not tradable commodity

(C) Illegal Revenue Confiscation Rule

Income derived from:

• unauthorized facial recognition
• biometric resale
• hacked identity systems
  → is confiscated as illegal gains

(D) Platform Liability Expansion

Platforms are liable even if:

• third-party vendors collected biometric data
• AI systems indirectly monetized it

(E) Evidence Integrity Requirement

Biometric logs must be:

• tamper-proof
• verifiable via judicial blockchain systems

4. How SPC Resolves “Biometric Platform Income Disputes”

The SPC typically follows a 3-step test:

Step 1: Source Legality

Was biometric data lawfully collected?

Step 2: Monetisation Link

Was revenue directly or indirectly generated from biometric usage?

Step 3: Benefit Attribution

Who profited and whether enrichment is unjust?

If any step fails → income is stripped or redistributed via compensation/confiscation

5. Conclusion

The Supreme People’s Court’s jurisprudence shows a consistent direction:

Biometric data is treated as a protected personal attribute, not a commercial resource.

Therefore:

• Platforms cannot freely monetize biometric systems
• Income derived from biometric exploitation is often invalidated
• Illegal biometric profits are subject to confiscation and criminal sanctions
• Courts prioritize privacy and data integrity over platform revenue claims