CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Digitalization, Law, and RegulationComparative and International Law StudiesGovernment, Law, and Information Management

From brussels effect to gravity assists: Understanding the evolution of the GDPR-inspired personal information protection law in China

Open access
Li, Wenlong, Chen, Jiahong·2024·Computer Law & Security Review
DOI 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105994

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper explores the evolution of China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and situates it within the context of global data protection development. It draws inspiration from the theory of ‘Brussels Effect’ and provides a critical account of its application in non-Western jurisdictions, taking China as a prime example. Our objective is not to provide a comparative commentary on China's legal development but to illuminate the intricate dynamics between the Chinese law and the EU's GDPR. We argue that the trajectory of China's Personal Information Protection Law calls into question the applicability of the Brussels Effect: while the GDPR's imprint on the PIPL is evident, a deeper analysis unveils China's nuanced, non-linear adoption that diverges from many assumptions of the Brussels Effect and similar theories. The evolution of the GDPR-inspired PIPL is not as a straightforward outcome of the Brussels Effect but as a nuanced, intricate interplay of external influence and domestic dynamics. We introduce a complementary theory of ‘gravity assist’, which portrays China's strategic instrumentalisation of the GDPR as a template to shape its unique data protection landscape. Our theoretical framework highlights how China navigates through a patchwork of internal considerations, international standards, and strategic choices, ultimately sculpting a data protection regime that has a similar appearance to the GDPR but aligns with its distinct political, cultural and legal landscape. With a detailed historical and policy analysis of the PIPL, coupled with reasonable speculations on its future avenues, our analysis presents a pragmatic, culturally congruent approach to legal development in China. It signals a trajectory that, while potentially converging at a principled level, is likely to diverge significantly in practice, driven by China's broader socio-political and economic agendas rather than the foundational premises of EU data protection law and its global aspirations. It thus indicates the inherent limitations of applying Brussels Effect and other theoretical frameworks to non-Western jurisdictions, highlighting the imperative for integrating complementary theories to more accurately navigate complex legal landscapes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105994

Cites

30 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regulatory solutions such as the European Union's Digital Services Act face significant jurisdictional hurdles in the United States and China, limiting the influence of the European Union's Brussels Effect.

    “Yet such initiatives face significant jurisdictional hurdles in the United States and China (Liu & Yang, 2022), limiting the influence of the European Union's “Brussels Effect” (Li & Chen, 2024).”

    From Stuck in the middleware with you: the challenges of capitalizing a market-oriented approach to platform governance (2025) · cites this paper as Li & Chen, 2024

    Section 2.3 (pp. 8–9) argues that the Brussels Effect has limitations in China, supporting the cited point that EU regulatory influence can be limited. But Li and Chen examine the GDPR and Chinese data-protection law; they do not establish that jurisdictional hurdles for initiatives such as the Digital Services Act in both the United States and China limit that influence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Adams J and Almahmoud H, 'The Meaning of Privacy in the Digital Era' (2023) 15(1) International Journal of Security and Privacy in Pervasive Computing (IJSPPC) 1
  2. Bennett CJ and Raab CD, The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective (The MIT Press 2006)
  3. Bradford A, 'The Brussels Effect' (2012) 107(1) Northwestern University Law Review 1
  4. --, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (Oxford University Press 2020) --, Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology (Oxford University Press 2023)
  5. Broucke RA, 'The celestial mechanics of gravity assist' (Astrodynamics Conference, Minneapolis, August 1988)
  6. --, 'The 'Strasbourg Effect' on data protection in light of the 'Brussels Effect': Logic, mechanics and prospects' (2021) 40 Computer Law & Security Review 105460
  7. Chander A and Schwartz PM, 'Privacy and/or Trade' (2023) 90(1) University of Chicago Law Review 49
  8. Clarke D, 'Anti anti-Orientalism, or is Chinese law different?' (2020) 68(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 55
  9. --, 'Commission opens formal proceedings against TikTok under the Digital Services Act' (2024) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip\_24\_926> accessed 5 May 2024
  10. Cui H and Fan C, 'A Study On Judicial Application Of Crime Of Infringing Citizens' Personal Information: Based On Some Judicial Decisions In Beijing ( 侵犯公民个人信息罪的司法适用研 究 --以北京市部分司法判决为基础 )' (2022)(5) Journal of Shandong Police College 26
  11. Data Protection Commission, 'Irish Data Protection Commission announces €345 million fine of TikTok' (2023) <https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/DPC-announces345-million-euro-fine-of-TikTok> accessed 20 October 2023
  12. Ding X, 'Reflection and Reconstruction of Personal Information Rights: On the Applicable Premise and Legal Interest Basis of Personal Information Protection Law ( 个人信息权利的反思与重塑 --论个人信息保护的适用前提与法益基础 )' (2020) 32(2) Peking University Law Journal 339
  13. Ginsburg T, 'Does Law Matter for Economic Development? Evidence from East Asia' (2000) 34 Law and Society Review 829
  14. --, 'The 'Brussels effect'of the EU's 'AI Act'on data privacy outside Europe' <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3898904> accessed 20 October 2023
  15. <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3989775> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  16. <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4461729> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  17. <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4426146> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  18. <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4530145> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  19. --, 'Global data privacy laws: EU leads US and the rest of the world in enforcement by penalties' <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4409491> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  20. Greenleaf G and Livingston S, 'China's New Cybersecurity Law-Also a Data Privacy Law?' <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2958658> accessed 20 October 2023
  21. Jayasuriya K, 'The rule of law and governance in East Asia' in Mark Beeson (ed) Reconfiguring East Asia (Routledge 2002) 99-116
  22. Liu Q, 'Disagreements on the Rights of Personal Information Protection and Resolution ( 个人信息保 护的权利化分歧及其化解 )' (2022) 52(6) China Law Review 107
  23. Mannion C, 'Data imperialism: The GDPR's disastrous impact on Africa's E-commerce markets' (2020) 53 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 685
  24. OECD, 'OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data' (1980) <https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-guidelines-on-the-protectionof-privacy-and-transborder-flows-of-personal-data\_9789264196391-en> accessed 13 June 2020
  25. Peerenboom R, 'Globalization, path dependency and the limits of law: Administrative law reform and rule of law in the People's Republic of China' (2001) 19 Berkeley Journal of International Law 161
  26. Polonetsky J, Tene O and Finch K, 'Shades of gray: Seeing the full spectrum of practical data deintentification' (2016) 56 Santa Clara Law Review 593
  27. Qi A and Zhang Z, 'Identification and reidentification: The definition of personal information and the legislative choice ( 识别与再识别 : 个人信息的概念界定与立法选择 )' (2018) 24(2) Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition) 119
  28. Shen W, 'On the Construction and Systematization of the Personal Information Right ( 论个人信息权 的构建及其体系化 )' (2021) 189(5) Journal of Comparative Law 1
  29. Siegmann C and Anderljung M, 'The Brussels effect and artificial intelligence: How EU regulation will impact the global AI market' <https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.12645> accessed 20 October 2023 · DOI
  30. Vogel D, Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy (Harvard University Press 1995)
  31. Wang S, 'Authoritarian Legality and Legal Instrumentalism in China' (2022) 10(1) The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 154
  32. Zhang L and Xu D, 'On the legal regulation of personal information anonymizationin China under the risk control concept ( 风险控制理念下我国个人信息匿名化处理的法律规制 )' (2023) 29(2) Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition) 220
  33. Zhang X, 'A Discussion on the Legislation of Individual Information Protection of China ( 我国个人 信息保护法立法主要矛盾研讨 )' (2018) 58(5) Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition 45
  34. Zhou H, Personal Information Protection Law (Expert Proposal) and Legislative Research Report ( 个人信息保护法(专家建议稿)及立法研究报告 ) (Law Press China 2006)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Li, W., & Chen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Chen, Jiahong
ORCID
Venue
Computer Law & Security Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
54
Pages
105994
ISSN
2212-473X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105994
OpenAlex
W4399457819
Cited by
31
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 2
FWCI
79.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
International Communication Association
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Government, Law, and Information Management
Keywords
GDPR, Brussels effect, gravity assist, data protection law, China, EU data protection law, legal transplants

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review