China’s First Ruling: Browser “Movie Mode” and “Resource Sniffing” Technology Do Not Constitute Contributory Infringement

On September 15, 2025, the Dongguan Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province rendered a second-instance judgment in the nation’s first case concerning a browser’s “Movie Mode” and “Resource Sniffing” technology, holding that no infringement was established, dismissing the appeal, and upholding the original judgment.

In 2024, a Beijing-based cultural company filed a lawsuit against a Guangdong-based technology company. The plaintiff alleged that it had obtained the exclusive right of communication through information networks for several audiovisual works, including The Housekeeper, Life and Death Plunder, and The Feast. However, in November 2022, the plaintiff’s authorized representative used a vivo mobile phone equipped with the defendant’s “vivo browser” to search for the aforementioned works in the browser’s search bar. When accessing third-party websites (such as “h9t Korean Drama Site”, “Star Cinema”, “Momo Movies”, and “234 Film Site”) to play the content, the browser allegedly actively provided two special features: “Movie Mode”, which automatically switched to a dedicated playback interface free from advertisements and pop-ups; and “Resource Sniffing”, which displayed a download button on the playback interface, allowing users to download the videos to their mobile phones.

When using other third-party browsers such as “Edge Browser” to access the same third-party websites, neither the download button nor the “Movie Mode” appeared. The plaintiff argued that this proved the defendant had “selectively” provided special technical services to unlicensed pirate websites, thereby constituting contributory infringement of the right of communication through information networks.

The defendant contended that “Movie Mode” merely blocks undesirable advertisements and malicious pop-ups on third-party websites—a common browser technology. The “sniffing” feature provides users with a smooth viewing experience and complies with the basic functions of browsers as stipulated in the Technical Requirements for Mobile Terminal Browser Software. The disputed works were all stored on third-party websites; the browser merely provided locating and access services and was not a content provider. Moreover, the infringing nature of the third-party websites was not obvious. As a browser service provider facing a vast number of web pages, the defendant could not reasonably review each one. After receiving a letter from the plaintiff in April 2023, the defendant added the relevant websites to a “sniffing blacklist”, disabled the relevant functions, and took sufficient necessary measures.

The case was first heard by the Dongguan Second People’s Court, which conducted a detailed analysis from several perspectives:

First, “Movie Mode” does not constitute “deep linking”. The court held that the “Movie Mode” neither leaves the third-party website nor creates a new link. Users could directly view the URL of the third-party website within the Movie Mode interface, and that URL was identical to the video web address of the original site. During playback, users could return to the original website at any time and were not “trapped” in the browser environment. Therefore, the mode did not constitute the alleged “deep linking” and did not alter the source of the work’s dissemination.

Second, absence of subjective fault. The court pointed out that contributory infringement requires that the network service provider have subjective fault (knowledge or reason to know) regarding the infringing activity. There was no evidence of actual knowledge, nor did the situation satisfy the standard of constructive knowledge (i.e., should have known). The plaintiff argued that the defendant provided differential treatment (i.e., no Movie Mode for legitimate large-scale websites such as iQiyi). However, the court reasoned that this was likely because major video websites employ technical protection measures such as “blob” technology, which prevent the browser from automatically sniffing and optimizing playback—rather than being an active choice or discriminatory conduct by the defendant.

Regarding the sniffing service, the court explicitly ruled that it does not expand the scope of dissemination. Regardless of whether a user plays the work online or downloads it via the sniffing function and then plays it, the nature of the act remains a single instance of accessing and viewing the work. Whether a user subsequently further disseminates the downloaded file is a separate subsequent act for which the technical tool itself cannot be held liable. Consequently, the browser’s sniffing service did not expand the dissemination scope of the works and did not constitute contributory infringement of the right of communication through information networks.

The court emphasized that browser service providers face an enormous volume of information on the internet and do not have a general duty to monitor. This principle is reflected in Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Adjudication of Civil Disputes over Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Networks. Given the current state of technology, browser service providers generally lack the information management capability to identify whether web page content is infringing. Furthermore, the defendant had promised the plaintiff to cease the disputed functions, added the relevant websites to a blacklist, and fulfilled the necessary technical and legal measures expected of a “prudent manager.”

Accordingly, the Dongguan Second People’s Court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed to the Dongguan Intermediate People’s Court. The second-instance court fully upheld the first-instance judgment on the key dispute (whether the defendant constituted contributory infringement), ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.