Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: 人工智能深度融入法律实施体系已成为不可逆趋势，电子商务平台侵权治理机制正经历智能化重构。现有学术探讨多聚焦网络版权领域，对电商场景下通知规则的智能化演进关注不足，这与平台经济占数字经济总量近半数的产业地位形成显著反差。技术赋能虽提升治理效率，但算法缺陷与制度漏洞的叠加效应导致通知激增与误判风险加剧。破解困境需构建双重规制路径：前端实施算法准入审查与动态有效性标准，通过技术备案控制通知质量；后端建立分层追责体系，区分技术应用方、研发方与审查方的责任边界。在举证层面，应引入因果关系推定规则破解算法黑箱导致的证明困境，同时确立无过错责任基准限制技术中立抗辩。人工智能时代错误通知需要合理分配责任。首先需要区分错误通知主体，严格区分算法使用者、设计者以及审查者错误。其次，错误通知适用无过错责任原则，以减轻举证责任；而恶意通知的规制应延续过错责任原则，通过司法解释细化“恶意”认定标准。最后，对于平台责任认定，需结合技术可行性建立过错程度三维评估模型(损害后果、权利属性、技术水平)合理确定错误通知的责任范围，避免过度归责抑制创新活力。The deep integration of artificial intelligence into the law enforcement system has become an irreversible trend, and the infringement governance mechanism of e-commerce platform is undergoing intelligent reconstruction. The existing academic discussions focus more on the field of network copyright and pay less attention to the intelligent evolution of notification rules in the context of e-commerce, which is in significant contrast to the industrial status of platform economy, which accounts for nearly half of the total digital economy. Although technological empowerment improves the efficiency of governance, the superposition effect of algorithm defects and institutional loopholes leads to a surge in notifications and an increase in the risk of misjudgment. To solve the dilemma, it is necessary to build a dual regulatory path: the front end implements algorithmic access review and dynamic validity standards, and controls the quality of notification through technical filing; the back end establishes a hierarchical accountability system, and the system is divided into three levels, distinguishing the responsibility boundary of the technology user, R&D Party and Review Party. At the level of proof, the rule of causation presumption should be introduced to solve the proof dilemma caused by the algorithmic black box, and at the same time, the strict liability benchmark restriction technology neutrality defense should be established. Error notification in the era of artificial intelligence requires reasonable allocation of responsibilities. First of all, we need to distinguish the error notification body, and strictly distinguish the algorithm user, designer and reviewer errors. Secondly, the principle of strict liability should be applied to the wrong notice to reduce the burden of proof, while the regulation of malicious notice should continue the principle of fault liability and refine the standard of “Malicious” identification through judicial interpretation, ensure that the notification rule continues to play the role of balancing rights and interests in the era of intelligence, and provide institutional guarantee for the high-quality development of the digital economy. Finally, for the determination of platform liability, it is necessary to establish a three-dimensional evaluation model of the degree of fault (damage consequences, right attributes, and technical level) in combination with technical feasibility to reasonably determine the scope of liability for error notification, avoid excessive imputation and inhibit the vitality of innovation.
Source: E-Commerce Letters
Author: 伟晨 任
Institution: Guizhou University
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4411462023