## Facts

- Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co., Ltd. (QVOD) operated a web and mobile video platform and related software through which users could access video content.
- Copyright authorities had previously penalized QVOD for infringing copyrighted films owned by LETV Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (LETV).
- Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (Tencent) later sent multiple notices to QVOD demanding removal of Tencent’s copyrighted video content from QVOD’s platform.
- QVOD did not remove the identified Tencent content after receiving the notices.
- Acting in response to Tencent’s complaint, the Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulations (also described as the Market Supervision Bureau) investigated QVOD’s dissemination of Tencent’s content and imposed administrative penalties, including an order to stop the infringement and a large fine.
- The bureau determined that QVOD’s illegal turnover tied to the infringement could be quantified and used as the base for the fine; the fine imposed was RMB 260.148 million (described in public summaries as three times the illegal turnover).
- QVOD sought administrative reconsideration and then filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the bureau’s penalties, arguing in part that it had already been penalized by China’s National Copyright Administration and therefore could not be penalized again for the same conduct.
- The trial court upheld the bureau’s penalties, and QVOD appealed to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulations could lawfully impose an administrative copyright fine against QVOD for infringing Tencent’s works where QVOD had previously been penalized by national copyright authorities for other infringing activity.
2. Whether QVOD qualified as a neutral network service provider entitled to safe-harbor style limits on liability, given Tencent’s notices and QVOD’s continued availability of the copyrighted content.
3. Whether the bureau’s fine—based on illegal turnover and set at RMB 260.148 million—was within lawful authority and supported by the record.

## Decision

- The Guangdong Higher People’s Court rejected QVOD’s appeal and affirmed the trial court judgment upholding the bureau’s penalties.
- The court upheld the finding that QVOD infringed Tencent’s right to disseminate works via information networks by making Tencent’s copyrighted content available on QVOD’s platform without authorization and after notice.
- The court rejected QVOD’s argument that the bureau’s sanction was impermissible double punishment based on earlier enforcement by the National Copyright Administration, concluding the bureau’s action was not barred on the record presented.
- The court sustained the monetary penalty (RMB 260.148 million) as a lawful administrative fine tied to illegal turnover as determined by the enforcement authority.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative agencies with statutory enforcement authority may impose administrative penalties for online copyright infringement, including orders to stop infringement and monetary fines.
- A platform that hosts or makes copyrighted works available without authorization and continues that availability after receiving rightsholder notices may be treated as an infringing disseminator rather than a neutral intermediary for liability-limitation purposes.
- Prior administrative action by a national copyright authority does not automatically bar a separate administrative penalty by a local market-regulation authority when the later penalty addresses infringement found in a separate enforcement action and supported by its own record.
- When the governing rules authorize fines tied to illegal turnover, courts will generally uphold the agency’s fine calculation if it is grounded in the agency’s findings and remains within the permitted statutory range.

## Conclusion

The Guangdong Higher People’s Court affirmed Shenzhen’s administrative penalties against QVOD, including a RMB 260.148 million fine, holding that QVOD’s unauthorized availability of Tencent’s copyrighted content after repeated notices supported administrative punishment and that earlier national-level penalties did not, on this record, bar the bureau’s later sanction.


Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co. v. Shenzhen Admin. for Market Regulations, Guangdong Higher People’s Court (2019)