01
Factual background & dispute
- The platform hid a post and imposed a one-day suspension because it allegedly contained unlabeled AI-generated content.
- The user denied using AI and the platform rejected the appeal.
- The platform did not adequately explain the algorithmic basis for its conclusion.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- Whether the platform could review and enforce against unlabeled generated content under its user agreement
- What evidentiary and explanatory duties apply when an algorithmic finding is disputed
- Whether account enforcement lacking a factual basis constituted breach of contract
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The platform could review and manage generated content under the user agreement.
- Because it controlled the detection tool and result, it had to provide a reasonable and proportionate explanation.
- Its unexplained enforcement constituted breach, and the court ordered deletion of the non-compliant backend record.
04
Practical risk implications
01Generated-content detection requires documented thresholds, human review, and false-positive handling.
02Visibility restrictions and account sanctions should provide concrete reasons and appeal channels.
03Platforms should retain model versions, detection outputs, human review, and appeal records.