Beijing enforces first aigc trade secret penalty, company fined 100,000 yuan for misusing former employer's AI software

The Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Bureau has issued a landmark ruling, marking the first administrative penalty case in the AIGC field concerning trade secrets. A company was fined 100,000 yuan for an employee who copied and used AI software developed by their former employer. The case highlights the boundaries between talent mobility and trade secret protection. The rights holder is a leading company in the industry, specializing in foreign language dubbing and AI multilingual film translation services for short videos. It developed an internal AIGC commercial software to support its core business, significantly reducing translation cycles and boosting production capacity. This software is a key part of the company's core competitiveness and a protected confidential intangible asset. A core employee copied and cracked the accompanying database during their employment. After leaving, the employee founded a new company and used the system to undertake competitive business for commercial gain. Law enforcement faced challenges due to the high concealment, technical difficulty, and ease of evidence loss in the AIGC field. Officers used advanced electronic data evidence collection techniques. They fixed data on involved computers and servers to prevent evidence alteration or deletion. Through cross-comparison of software installation traces, database access logs, and project output files, they reconstructed the defendant's copying and cracking behavior during employment and the reuse of the software in the new company. This established a complete chain of evidence showing 'copying - cracking - reuse across companies - continuous profit.' Based on Article 26 of the People's Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the market supervision department imposed a fine of 100,000 yuan on the involved party. They also assisted the company in strengthening confidentiality systems such as permission grading, log tracing, and off-boarding audits, eliminating daily management loopholes. This case is significant as it is the first administrative penalty involving trade secrets in the AIGC field in Beijing. It clearly defines that AIGC commercial software can be protected as trade secrets at the administrative enforcement level. It also demonstrates the market supervision department's capability to handle complex evidence collection issues in this field. The case sends a clear signal to the workforce that while talent can move freely, it must not use former employers' digital assets as a platform for entrepreneurship and profit. It provides a highly referenceable law enforcement model for similar cases nationwide.