CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Digitalization, Law, and RegulationDiverse Legal and Medical StudiesIntellectual Property Rights and Media

A comparative study on public interest considerations in data scraping dispute

Fei, Lanfang·2024·International Journal of Law in Context
DOI 10.1017/s1744552324000156
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

New technologies and the new business practices that they bring often raise difficult questions about the application of the law. This often stems from the difficulty of clarifying the impact of new technologies on the interests of different groups in society and, in particular, the difficulty of measuring the public interest brought about by new technologies. In practice, in disputes arising from new technologies, the users of the new technologies often justify their actions in terms of the public interest. In this paper, we compare data collection cases in the US, EU and China and extract the types of public interests discussed in typical cases in different countries, including (1) data-related property rights protection and commercial principles to prevent free-riding; (2) privacy, personal data protection and data security; (3) competition and innovation interests related to the free flow of data; and (4) freedom of expression. The comparison shows that an appropriate focus on the public interest in data flow has led Chinese and US courts to rule in favour of scrapers in a few recent cases, in contrast to the judicial attitude of EU courts, whicht value privacy. The author applauds the attitude of the courts in the US and China and argues that free competition and innovative interests based on data flows are public interests that should be prioritized in data scraping cases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1744552324000156

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • GAI companies often lack transparency regarding their training datasets.

    “Fei (2024) noted that GAI companies often lack transparency regarding their training datasets, further compounding the challenge of data governance.”

    From Bridging risk and retention: risk coping with privacy and hallucination in AI (2026) · cites this paper as Fei 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fei, L.
Affiliations
Jinan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Fei, Lanfang
ORCID
Fei, Lanfang
Venue
International Journal of Law in Context
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2024-09-06
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
568-580
ISSN
  • 1744-5523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5531
DOI
10.1017/s1744552324000156
OpenAlex
W4402320876
Cited by
4
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2
FWCI
10.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
International Journal of Law in Context (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
Keywords
data scraping, public interest, comparative law, European Union, China, data ownership, free-riding, privacy, personal data protection, data security, competition, innovation, freedom of expression, judicial attitudes

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