Face recognition case 1 adjudicated that prosecutors were not satisfied with the results


Original title: first case of face recognition, verdict, “unsatisfactory results”
Intern Liu Yuxiu surging journalist Ren Wu
The lawsuit with Hangzhou Wildlife World Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “wildlife world”), Guo Bing called it a “emotional” lawsuit.
In October 2019, Guo Bing, a distinguished associate professor of Zhejiang University of science and technology, spent one day preparing a complaint and went to the court to file a case because he was not angry with the wildlife world and forced tourists to brush their faces.
One year and 23 days later, on November 20, 2020, the first instance of the “first case of China’s face recognition” pronounced that wildlife world compensated Guo Bing’s contract interest loss and transportation expenses by 1038 yuan, and deleted the facial feature information including photos submitted by Guo Bing when he handled the fingerprint annual card.
Guo Bing was not completely satisfied with the result: the court only supported the deletion of facial features including his own photos, while the four litigation claims that the contents of fingerprint recognition and face recognition related format terms were invalid were not supported by the court. The judge held that the content of the face recognition format clause was only a unilateral offer made by the wildlife world. Guo Bing did not accept it, so it was invalid.
After the judgment of the first trial, the wildlife world still uses the standard terms that can only be entered through face recognition, which makes this lawsuit to some extent become a “win without winning”.
Guo Bing decided to appeal.
Eight claims in Guo Bing’s indictment. All the pictures are provided by the interviewees
The following is oral
On the evening of October 17, 2019, I saw a short message from Hangzhou wildlife world, saying that the park entry recognition system has been updated, and the annual pass user needs to activate the face recognition system, otherwise, they will not be able to enter the park. I sent this message to my friends circle, Tucao, “this company is trying to make complaints about personal sensitive information more and more excessive.”
Guo Bing make complaints about the personal information in the wild animal world of friends circle.
I remember that when I applied for the annual card last April, I raised an objection, but because there were a lot of people queuing up in the annual card center on weekends, the children were crying, and my wife urged me, so I was forced to agree to fingerprint entry. Originally, we wanted to buy a single ticket. The conductor thought that we were two adults and one child, and suggested that we should apply for a double annual card, which costs 1360 yuan and can be used indefinitely within a year. After I paid the fee at the ticket window, the staff immediately issued the corresponding invoice. In fact, the contract between me and wildlife world has been reached. Then I went to the annual card center to handle the card opening procedures. I think it is obviously unreasonable to use fingerprint identification as the only way to enter the Park.
In October, when I received the notice of face recognition again, I was just complaining at the beginning, and I would not want to take a lawsuit against wildlife world. That night, I also forwarded the screenshot of SMS to a friend working in the procuratorate, hoping that it could be used as a clue of public interest litigation in the field of personal information protection.
On October 17, 2019, Guo Bing received a short message that the annual card of Hangzhou Wildlife World Park was upgraded to face recognition and the original fingerprint identification was cancelled.
I think it’s just a short message notice. It seems that it’s not enough as a clue of public interest litigation. In case of fraud, I decided to go to the wildlife world to learn about it.
On October 26, 2019, I invited a colleague who had worked in the court for many years to accompany me to the wildlife world. In person and the staff of the annual pass center confirmed the authenticity of the short message notification content of face recognition, and the corresponding content was also clearly stated in the store notice.
I asked the staff of the annual pass center why we should change the way of entering the park for adult face recognition. The staff did not give a clear answer, but only emphasized the trend of smart scenic spots and smart tourism. I asked who provided the face recognition technology, and the staff didn’t tell me.
However, I said that I agreed to register for face recognition, but my wife didn’t agree. If she didn’t want to register for face recognition, wouldn’t it lose the significance of the two person annual card and hope to negotiate a refund. The staff of the annual card center asked me to come to the gate and wait for the after-sales staff to come over for consultation.
In the process of waiting for the after-sales staff at the ticket gate, my colleagues and I were surprised to find that the staff used mobile phones to sweep their faces at tourists. When the after-sales staff came to negotiate the return of the card, I questioned the safety of the mobile phone face brushing. The other side explained that the mobile phone was bound with a face recognition system, which was very safe.
The more I think about their practice, the more angry I am. I don’t know whether it is the requirement of government departments, who provides face recognition technology, and employees can brush their faces with their mobile phones. I can’t accept these three aspects. In addition, the refund plan given by the other party is to convert the single fee that has been entered into the park. After deducting this part of fee, the refund can be made only if there is any surplus. Two adults spend four or five hundred yuan for a single visit to the park. According to this plan, they may have to pay back to the wildlife world.
Under the emotional impulse, I spent a whole day preparing the prosecution materials the next day, and went to the court to prepare the case on October 28.
No winner
In the court, after seeing the material, the staff asked for mediation before the lawsuit, and if they did not agree to conciliation, they would not receive the materials. I really disagree with mediation because I have gone to a wildlife world, and I can only accept mediation before I go in order not to run in white animal.
Notification before mediation.
After getting the contact information of the mediator, I called for two or three days in a row, saying that there was no room for mediation, and I requested that the case should be formally filed. It would also be very meaningful for the court to hear the case. I don’t know whether the mediator was convinced or annoyed by me. On November 1, last year, I received a notice to file a case.
At the beginning, the content of the indictment was very simple. The claim only included asking wildlife world to compensate for the two person annual card fee and bear the litigation cost. After consulting my prosecution, my lawyer friend who had been engaged in Internet legal services asked me for permission to forward the official account of the case to their public numbers, and for the first time, put forward the first case of face recognition in China.
On October 28, 2019, Guo Bing submitted a civil complaint to the court.
In November 2nd, many friends contacted me, “Mr. Guo, you searched the hot house”. I was surprised at that time. I didn’t expect that the forwarding of friends’ official account would cause so much concern. After that, two of my lawyer friends said that they wanted to participate in the case, and I agreed that they would provide legal aid.

In December of the same year, wildlife world provided defense and evidence to the prosecution materials I submitted in October. Based on their defense and evidence materials, I have increased the number of claims to eight. According to the law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests, I have added four claims for invalidation of the standard terms of fingerprint recognition and face recognition in the wildlife world. In addition, I also increased the claim for compensation of transportation expenses and the deletion of all personal information submitted by handling and using the annual card in the presence of a third technical organization.
Wildlife world put forward in its defense and evidence materials in December that I agreed to take photos when I applied for the annual card in April, which was equivalent to having agreed to face recognition. Because the annual card is real name business card printing, I agreed to take photos, but at that time, the behavior of taking pictures and the meaning of face recognition were completely different.
According to China’s “network security law” issued in 2016, Chapter IV network information security clearly stipulates the right to delete personal information. Wildlife world illegally collects my personal information, which meets the conditions of personal information deletion right in the network security law.
In addition, wildlife world proposed that before and after I apply for the annual card, there are many other ways to enter the park besides fingerprint identification. I was never told that there was any other way to enter the park. At that time, my colleagues helped me to shoot a video, which clearly showed that the staff told me that there was only one way to enter the park. I have submitted the corresponding evidence to the court.
Affected by the epidemic situation, a court hearing was held on June 15 this year, which was supposed to have been pronounced in early September this year. However, the court later informed the court that the case was postponed for another six months with the approval of the president because the case was “difficult and complicated”. But in my opinion, this case does not meet the conditions for postponement.
On June 15 this year, Guo Bing attended the court as the plaintiff.
On November 20, the people’s Court of Fuyang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, ruled in the first instance that the loss of interests and transportation expenses in the wildlife world compensation contract amounted to 1038 yuan, deleting the facial features information submitted when handling the fingerprint annual card, but rejected other litigation claims.
I am not satisfied with the result of this judgment and choose to continue to appeal. In particular, I think that this is not only to protect my personal legitimate rights and interests, but also to protect the legitimate rights and interests of other annual card users.
The claim for invalidation of the standard terms of face recognition was rejected. The judge held that the contents of the standard terms were invalid to me, but only the unilateral offer made by wildlife world, which I did not accept. It is considered that taking photos to collect my facial feature information does not constitute fraud. It only supports the deletion of facial feature information, and the request of deleting fingerprint and other identity information is not supported.
If the time face recognition of wild animals is required by the government, the corresponding technology providers are open and transparent, personal information has relatively transparent security measures, and the entry mode also provides a variety of choices, I may not be so exclusive of their face recognition entry methods.
Judging from the results of the current first instance judgment, the wildlife world can continue to adopt the “overlord clause” which can only be used to enter the park through face recognition, and the forced face brushing situation will not be improved. Instead, they will force the annual pass users to brush their faces more justifiably. This is also the reason why some of the legal friends said that they won the lawsuit and others said that they did not win the lawsuit
Individual struggle
After the judgment of the first instance, the appeal period is 15 days. If no appeal is made within 15 days, the verdict will come into effect. On the afternoon of November 29, I mailed the petition of appeal and supplementary evidence to the court. I hope that the court of second instance can respond to the challenge strategy adopted in the first instance of this case.
Some of my elder relatives didn’t agree with me when they heard that I sued wildlife world. It’s not a good thing for them to take a lawsuit in their heart. I tried to explain to them as much as possible. The whole prosecution process of this case is not difficult for me, but after the case was concerned, many media came to interview me, which affected my normal life.
Some of my classmates and friends in Hangzhou are also annual card users of wildlife world, including one of the lawyers representing this case. They said to me, “Mr. Guo, I admire you very much, but we can’t do it. Our family doesn’t support it. We have to take children to play because that place is really suitable for children to play.” I have also mobilized my classmates and friends to sue, but I did not persuade one person in the end.
My children are still young and do not have a strong sense of autonomy. However, the children of my classmates and friends are generally older, and they may take the initiative to ask to go to the wildlife world. This is why many of my friends can’t withstand the pressure and are not willing to sue.
It’s more than 50 kilometers from where I live to Hangzhou wildlife world and Fuyang district court. It takes more than two hours to drive back and forth, and the cost of a single trip is at least one or two hundred yuan, which is very frustrating. But I think this case is meaningful. I will try my best to squeeze out the time to try again. Because I think it is not right to adopt evasive strategies for many key issues in the judgment of the first instance, and there is no convincing explanation in the judgment.
In the second half of last year, I gave students a course of legal practice. I would introduce some cases of safeguarding the rights of law students. I told students that learning law must have the ambition to fight for rights. I also hope to set an example for students through such a case.
I am also a real person. I have some real experiences in the past. But I’m not taking everything seriously.
In 2018, I used Apple mobile phone to pay without secret, and I was repeatedly deducted without any reason. In view of the violation of the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, I sued apple. The trial was abandoned for a number of reasons.
Suing similar technology giants will find that the difficulty is multiplied. I have studied law for ten years, and have been engaged in law teaching and research in University for nearly five years. I have a certain legal basis. If I have no legal knowledge at all, it is really a very challenging thing to protect the rights and interests of personal information through litigation.
Abuse of face recognition

This year, after the “personal information protection law (Draft)” was publicly solicited for opinions, I put forward corresponding suggestions to improve the protection of biometric information. I think that the personal information processor should not keep the original biometric information. In addition, I suggest that the threshold of the application of face recognition technology should be raised. In view of the obvious abuse trend of face recognition technology, face recognition technology processing facial feature information should obtain the corresponding administrative license.
Recently, Dongguan City Management Department responded to the face recognition involved in the free paper taking equipment for public toilets, and coordinated the termination of the use of the equipment. In a sense, as long as any enterprise wants to use face recognition technology, it can be used without any obstacles. If a large amount of facial feature information is used for profit by illegal third-party technical service companies or related personnel, the adverse consequences will be far greater than the favorable impact on public governance.
It is undeniable that face recognition technology will bring convenience to the public to a certain extent. But the view that “Chinese are willing to trade privacy for convenience” is obviously problematic.
Enterprises generally collect personal information on a large scale, not only for the purpose of user convenience, but also for more comprehensive grasp of user’s personal information and achieve commercial purposes such as precision marketing.
When face recognition becomes the only authentication method, its inconvenience will emerge. For example, a 94 year old man in Hubei, who was unable to move, was activated by his social security card and carried to a bank for face recognition.
In my opinion, in the future, personal information protection should give priority to the security risks of biometric information, including facial recognition information and other biometric information into the scope of special protection, and take specific examples of public places or security matters that collect biometric information in the name of public safety.
When personal information is infringed, even if we have a legal basis, we will not choose the way of litigation, because litigation has both threshold and time and energy, and it also involves financial investment.
But this does not mean that we all choose to be silent when personal information rights and interests are violated. I think we can at least complain to businesses and feed back relevant information. If we have more complaints, we can also attract the attention of businesses. In addition, we can also complain to the relevant government departments and solve the problems through the public power departments.