Electronic Evidence in Chinese Civil Procedure

Electronic evidence has become increasingly important in Chinese civil litigation. The 2019 amendment to the Civil Procedure Law formally recognized electronic data as a separate category of evidence, and the Supreme People’s Court has issued detailed provisions on the authentication and admissibility of electronic evidence. China has also pioneered the use of blockchain for evidence authentication.

The 2019 Civil Procedure Law Amendment

The 2019 amendment to the Civil Procedure Law added electronic data (dianzi shuju) as a separate category of evidence (Article 63), alongside traditional categories including documentary evidence, physical evidence, audiovisual materials, witness testimony, party statements, expert opinions, and inspection records. The amendment recognized that electronic evidence has distinctive characteristics — including volatility, replicability, and technical dependency — that require specific procedural treatment.

The amendment did not define electronic data in detail, leaving definitional questions to the SPC’s judicial interpretations. The SPC subsequently issued a definition that includes: email, electronic data interchange, online chat records, blog posts, microblogs, text messages, electronic signatures, domain names, and other information formed or stored in electronic media.

Supreme People’s Court Provisions

The SPC’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Adjudication of Cases Involving Electronic Evidence (2022) provide detailed rules for the authentication and evaluation of electronic evidence in civil proceedings. The Provisions distinguish between electronic data generated in the ordinary course of business and data generated for litigation purposes, with the former entitled to greater evidentiary weight.

The Provisions establish that electronic evidence is admissible if it can be verified by reference to other evidence, if there is evidence of the data’s origin and subsequent handling, and if the data can be attributed to a specific person or entity. The burden of proving authenticity falls on the party presenting the electronic evidence. The court may order the production of original electronic records or certified copies.

Electronic Data Types

Chinese courts recognize a wide range of electronic evidence types. Social media records (shejiao meiti jilu) — including WeChat messages, QQ chat records, Weibo posts, and Douyin (TikTok) content — are the most commonly submitted electronic evidence in civil cases. The SPC has held that social media records may be admitted where their authenticity can be established through user identity verification, IP address tracing, and other technical means.

Email evidence is admitted where the email account can be attributed to a specific person and the email content can be verified. Electronic contracts, electronic signatures, and electronic payment records are admissible under the Electronic Signature Law (2004, revised 2019). Website content, mobile app interfaces, and other online materials may be admitted where their original state can be verified through time-stamped screenshots or web archiving.

Notarization

Electronic evidence notarization (gongzheng) is a common method of authentication. Parties typically retain a notary public to capture and preserve electronic evidence through time-stamped screenshots, video recordings of online sessions, and certified copies of electronic records. The notarization certificate provides strong prima facie evidence of authenticity.

The SPC has held that notarized electronic evidence is entitled to high evidentiary weight but is not conclusive. The opposing party may challenge notarized evidence by showing that the notarization procedure was flawed or that the evidence was manipulated before or after notarization. The cost of notarization is a significant practical barrier, particularly in smaller cases.

Digital Forensics

Digital forensics evidence — including computer forensics, mobile device forensics, and network forensics — is admitted in civil cases where technical disputes arise. Forensic experts examine digital devices and systems to recover deleted data, trace data transmission, and identify unauthorized access. The expert’s report must comply with the SPC’s provisions on expert evidence (sifa jianding yijian).

The court may appoint forensic experts where the technical issues are beyond the court’s expertise. The expert’s opinion is subject to cross-examination by the parties and may be disregarded if the court finds it unreliable. The Digital Forensics Committee of the Ministry of Justice has issued standards for forensic examination of electronic evidence.

Blockchain Evidence Authentication

China has pioneered the use of blockchain technology for evidence authentication. The Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou have developed blockchain evidence platforms that allow parties to upload and timestamp electronic evidence. The blockchain record preserves an immutable record of the evidence’s existence and integrity at the time of submission.

The SPC recognized blockchain evidence in its 2022 Provisions, holding that blockchain-authenticated electronic evidence is presumed authentic unless the opposing party can prove the chain of evidence was broken. The Internet courts have accepted blockchain-authenticated evidence in e-commerce, copyright, and lending cases. Several blockchain evidence platforms — including the Hangzhou Internet Court’s blockchain platform and the JudgChain system — are now operational.

Social Media Records

Social media records present particular evidentiary challenges. The SPC has addressed: the identification of social media account holders (through mobile phone number verification, IP address records, and self-identification); the authentication of social media content (through time stamps, message integrity verification, and metadata analysis); and the privacy implications of social media evidence (requiring that evidence obtained in violation of privacy laws be excluded).

WeChat messages are the most commonly submitted social media evidence in Chinese civil litigation. Courts have developed standardized procedures for WeChat evidence, including: requiring the party to demonstrate that the WeChat account is linked to the other party; requiring screenshots of the complete chat history; and comparing the messages with other evidence in the case.