In a recent case before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses dismissed the defendants' argument that legal obligations under China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) prevent them from providing personal information relevant to the case, as she found "no true conflict" between the PIPL and the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision's discussion of various interpretive disagreements between the parties, which we set out below, may help in understanding the scope and meaning of PIPL.

You don't have access to this post on China Trade Monitor at the moment, but if you upgrade your account you'll be able to see the whole thing, as well as all the other posts in the archive! Subscribing only takes a few seconds and will give you immediate access.

This post is for subscribers only

Subscribe now