miHoYo Requests User Information Retrieval Tencent Responds: Strictly Provides Support in Accordance with Judicial Procedures

Legal Process and User Privacy Protection Become Focal Points, Highlighting Standard Data Retrieval Procedures in the Internet Industry

Beijing/Shenzhen, October XX, 2023 — A recent civil litigation procedure initiated by Shanghai miHoYo Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “miHoYo”) has attracted industry attention. It is reported that this procedure is not an infringement lawsuit against Tencent Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Tencent”). Instead, miHoYo, in order to address a dispute with a specific individual user, applied to the court in accordance with the law, requesting Tencent to assist in retrieving information related to the specific QQ user involved in the dispute.

In response to this matter, Tencent officially stated: “This litigation arises from miHoYo’s need to retrieve relevant QQ user information for its own civil litigation purposes. However, in accordance with legal provisions protecting user privacy, Tencent cannot provide user information in violation of regulations. Only through formal judicial procedures can such information be retrieved and provided. Tencent will strictly comply with legal requirements and relevant judicial procedures to provide support.“

This response clarifies the nature of the incident. The legal procedure is not a commercial conflict between the two companies but rather a routine evidence retrieval process initiated by an enterprise within the legal framework to protect its legitimate rights and interests. According to China’s “Personal Information Protection Law,” “Civil Procedure Law,” and relevant judicial interpretations, platform-based enterprises holding large amounts of user data (such as Tencent) bear strict obligations to protect users’ personal information. They are neither authorized nor permitted to directly provide user data to any enterprise or individual upon private request.

Only in formal judicial proceedings, after the court has conducted a legal review and issued an investigation order or relevant legal document, can the platform legally provide specific information authorized by law to the judicial authorities. The core purpose of this measure is to balance the two principles of “protecting citizens’ personal privacy” and “supporting the normal progress of judicial procedures,” ensuring that all data retrieval activities are legal, compliant, and transparent.

miHoYo’s approach of initiating litigation and applying to the court for evidence retrieval follows this legally mandated necessary path. This indicates an enhancement in corporate legal awareness, choosing the most formal and authoritative method to resolve disputes. Tencent’s response, on the other hand, highlights its commitment to prioritizing user privacy protection and strictly adhering to legal boundaries as a major internet platform in China. The actions of both parties demonstrate respect for legal procedures.

Currently, the case has entered judicial proceedings, and the court will subsequently conduct a legal review of miHoYo’s evidence retrieval application and decide whether to grant it. If the court approves the evidence retrieval in accordance with the law, Tencent has stated that it will fully cooperate with the requirements of the judicial authorities.

This incident also reminds the industry that in an era where data has become a key factor of production, all market participants must prioritize compliance when safeguarding their rights and interests. They must strictly follow the paths set by laws and regulations, as any attempt to bypass formal judicial procedures to obtain data is unacceptable.