º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

The 56th Statistical Report on China¡¯s Internet Development, issued by the China Internet Network Information Centre, reports that the country¡¯s internet users numbered 1.12 billion as of June 2025, equivalent to 79.7% of the population. Within this landscape, the online domain now plays a pivotal role in corporate identity and brand reputation.

However, the increasing scale, velocity and intricacy of information transmission have rendered brand protection more complex than ever. Informed by professional practice, this article aims to identify the principal features, root causes, evolving patterns, key challenges and strategic approaches to navigating today¡¯s internet public opinion environment.

Features

Diverse forms of online public opinion. These include the fabrication of rumours, malicious verbal abuse, content involving pornography, violence or political sensitivities, impersonation of accounts, recirculation of outdated news, distortion of reporting, dissemination of false or misleading reviews, and exploitative marketing that capitalises on trending events.

Rapid proliferation of online public opinion content. Driven by the rapid evolution of generative AI, the threshold for creating video and written content has fallen sharply, fuelling the swift expansion of online public sentiment.

Viral nature of information dissemination. Social media¡¯s algorithmic recommendations and one-click sharing features enable content to spread exponentially within moments and traverse multiple platforms with ease.

Persisting damage. Issuing clarifications or securing court judgments does not guarantee the removal of infringing content from search results, cached pages or automated extracts, meaning that negative material can continue to surface and cause harm over time.

Causes

Online public opinion arises from three primary sources.

1. 1. The pursuit of web traffic, trending topics or product sales drives actors to capitalise on high-profile incidents, well-known brands and business figures.
   2. Consumer disputes, labour conflicts or partnership disagreements ¨C when aired online with emotional framing ¨C provoke public scrutiny and escalate individual grievances into broader controversies.
   3. Distorted commercial competition fuels unfair advantage-seeking through negative campaigning against rivals, giving rise to a shadow industry of orchestrated posts, paid media placements and astroturfing networks.

Development and challenges

The Cyberspace Administration of China has continued to roll out the Clear and Bright Campaign, a nationwide campaign to purify the online environment.

Major online platforms are urged to swiftly investigate and handle complaints, remove false and misleading information, and sanction violative accounts. This reflects a shift in regulatory approach from platform-led self-governance towards more intrusive end-to-end oversight, reinforcing platforms¡¯ primary responsibility and requiring them to establish and enforce content governance mechanisms.

A comprehensive legal architecture for the protection of corporate reputation and the suppression of online torts has been erected through the Civil Code, the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments, the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretations. This multilayered statutory regime empowers aggrieved parties to require platforms to expeditiously delete infringing material and halt further violations.

However, with the existing policy instruments and legal remedies, the practical management of adverse internet sentiment continues to confront persistent difficulties.

1. 1. Negative sentiment tends to be dispersed across diverse platform modules ¨C from account names and bios to Q&A sections, posts and comments ¨C necessitating sophisticated analytical capacity.
   2. The rapid spread and persistence of negative sentiment further demand split-second identification and intervention.
   3. The advent of generative AI has rendered the creation of falsified text, imagery and audiovisual material far easier, compounding the difficulty of authentication for businesses.
   4. As public opinion response typically spans communications, legal, customer service and tech functions, any shortfall in cross-departmental co-ordination risks information silos, mounting internal friction and delayed reaction.
   5. Traditional countermeasures have proven largely ineffective against the decentralised spread of online sentiment, while judicial proceedings remain protracted and procedurally cumbersome, falling short of urgent operational needs.
   6. Given that content moderation policies, complaint acceptance criteria, handling procedures and timelines vary across platforms and are subject to frequent revision, companies attempting self-help enforcement often struggle to navigate reporting channels and review criteria, resulting in low efficiency.

Countermeasures

Drawing on extensive hands-on experience serving clients across multiple sectors and handling vast volumes of complaints, coupled with in-depth knowledge of complaint channels on hundreds of platforms, the authors have developed a mature response framework capable of systematically assisting clients in navigating the complexities of cross-platform rights enforcement.

Real-time containment. This approach involves continuous monitoring of public sentiment, tracking emerging topics and their dissemination patterns. Early warnings are issued for sensitive subjects in the pre-outbreak phase, allowing for proactive planning of intervention timelines.

Corporate complaints. Drawing on an in-depth understanding of legal provisions, Cyberspace Administration initiatives and platform-specific governance rules, the authors assist companies in filing complaints against various forms of infringing content ¨C including rumours, defamation and impersonation ¨C facilitating lawful, compliant and expeditious removal.

Rapid evidence preservation. This approach deploys full-spectrum blockchain timestamping to preserve online materials instantaneously, producing forensically sound electronic exhibits admissible in judicial proceedings, thus cementing the evidential basis for legal claims.

Multi-pronged enforcement. Tailored to the nature and gravity of the infringing conduct, a flexible combination of legal instruments is deployed, including lawyer letters, civil litigation, administrative complaints and criminal referrals.

Iterative optimisation. Drawing on case data and platform feedback, strategies are systematically reviewed and adjusted to enhance disposal efficiency and success rates over time.

Lyu Haishan and Xian Mingying are partners at ETR Law Firm.