Legal Risks Behind GPU Rental Price Hikes: Computing Power Contract Disputes Are on the Rise—How Can Companies Protect Their Rights Through Legal Means?
Main text (full version, 1,500–2,000 words):
Introduction: Recently, a piece of news in the tech industry sparked widespread discussion—the rental price of a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) that had been in use for three years not only did not decline with depreciation but actually rose against the trend. Behind this is the explosive growth in demand for artificial intelligence computing power, leading to a shortage of high-end GPUs and even a situation where "finding a single card is as hard as finding treasure." For many small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on computing power, the rising rental prices directly push up operating costs, and what is even more troublesome is that ensuing issues such as contract disputes, risk of breach of contract, and disputes over equipment quality are continually surfacing. As a lawyer who has long handled commercial contract disputes, I believe this is not merely a market phenomenon but also a vivid warning lesson for corporate legal risk management.
I. The GPU rental market is booming, with hidden risks of contract disputes lurking beneath the surface.
According to industry observations, since 2023, the global demand for AI large model training has surged, making high-end GPUs such as NVIDIA A100 and H100 scarce resources. Many domestic computing power service providers have taken advantage of this to raise rental prices, with even instances of contract breaches such as "failure to deliver after contract signing," "delivered equipment failing to meet performance standards," and "unilateral price increases." From a legal perspective, these acts implicate multiple provisions in the Contract Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, particularly Article 577 regarding liability for breach of contract: where one party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses.
In practice, I have encountered multiple computing power rental disputes. For example, a technology company rented 100 GPUs from a service provider for model training, and the contract clearly specified the equipment model as A100, but the actual delivery was replaced with lower-performance A800 units, resulting in extended training periods and increased costs. The company consulted whether it could claim damages for breach of contract. The answer is yes, but the key lies in how the contract is drafted. If the contract merely states "GPU servers" in general terms without specifying the exact model, computing power specifications, or video memory size, the burden of proof becomes significantly more difficult. Therefore, detailed contract terms before signing are the first line of defense against disputes.
II. Can Rent Increases Invoke "Change of Circumstances" or "Force Majeure"?
Facing rent increases, some tenant companies have consulted: Can they request contract termination or modification based on the provision on change of circumstances under Article 533 of the Civil Code? This provision stipulates that after the contract is formed, if a major change occurs in the basic conditions of the contract that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of concluding the contract and that does not constitute a commercial risk, and continuing to perform the contract is clearly unfair to one party, the adversely affected party may renegotiate with the other party; if negotiation fails, the party may request the people's court or an arbitration institution to modify or terminate the contract.
However, it should be noted that judicial practice is extremely strict in recognizing change of circumstances. Does the growth in computing power demand and the increase in GPU prices constitute an "unforeseeable major change"? Courts generally hold that market price fluctuations fall within the scope of commercial risk, and it is difficult to invoke this doctrine unless the increase is abnormal and exceeds reasonable expectations. For example, if the rent at the time of contract signing was RMB 10,000 per month and rises to RMB 50,000 three months later, that might potentially constitute a change of circumstances; but if it only rises by 20%-30%, the court will most likely deem it normal commercial risk. On the other hand, force majeure (Article 180) requires that the event be unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable, such as natural disasters or policy prohibitions, while changes in market supply and demand clearly do not satisfy the "insurmountable" element. Therefore, if a business seeks to terminate the contract or reduce rent on this ground, the probability of winning is relatively low, and it would be better to focus on performing the original terms of the contract.
III. Equipment Depreciation and Quality Disputes: Who Bears the Cost of Declining Performance of "Aging GPUs"?
The news mentioned that "a GPU used for three years now commands a higher rental price," which raises another legal issue: depreciation of the leased item and quality assurance liability. Under Article 714 of the Civil Code, the lessee shall properly keep the leased item and shall bear liability for compensation if the leased item is damaged or lost due to failure to keep it properly. Meanwhile, Article 713 provides that the lessee may request the lessor to repair the leased item within a reasonable period when repair is needed; if the lessee's use is affected by such repair, the rent shall be reduced accordingly or the lease term extended.
But the computing power scenario is special—GPU performance can degrade due to prolonged high-load operation, such as frequency throttling caused by poor heat dissipation or VRAM damage. In such cases, if the contract does not specify equipment performance acceptance criteria, the lessee may be forced to accept "aged equipment" and pay at the original price. My suggestion is: set clear performance benchmark clauses in the contract, such as agreeing on GPU peak computing power, power consumption, failure rate, etc., and agree on a periodic inspection mechanism. If the equipment provided by the lessor fails to meet the agreed standards, the lessee may claim rent reduction or contract termination. Additionally, if the lessor conceals the equipment's actual years of use or repair history, this may constitute fraud, and the lessee may request revocation of the contract under Article 148 of the Civil Code.
IV. Enterprise Response Strategies: From Contract Review to Evidence Preservation
In the face of fluctuations in the GPU rental market, enterprises should not sit idly by as losses occur, but should proactively take legal measures. First, before signing a contract, it is essential to review the lessor's qualifications, including business licenses, certificates of equipment ownership, or upstream procurement contracts, to avoid the risk of "sublessor" absconding. Second, contract terms should be detailed down to equipment serial numbers, technical parameters, delivery time, acceptance standards, liability for breach of contract, and dispute resolution methods, preferably with equipment photos or inspection reports attached. Third, during performance of the contract, be sure to preserve all communication records (emails, WeChat chats), payment vouchers, equipment operation logs, and other such materials, as these are key evidence for future rights protection.
If a dispute has already arisen, it is advisable to first send a lawyer's letter as a formal demand, thereby establishing the facts of the breach, and then proceed with negotiation or litigation. The statute of limitations is three years (Article 188 of the Civil Code), so rights must be asserted in a timely manner. For cases involving substantial amounts or complex technical issues, a judicial appraisal may be applied for to determine whether the equipment's performance meets the required standards.
V. Attorney's Advice: Professional Support to Help You Mitigate Computing Power Contract Risks
As an emerging business model, computing power leasing still has legal rules that are being refined, but the Contract Book of the Civil Code, the E-commerce Law, and judicial interpretations provide a basic framework. For enterprises, prevention beforehand is better than seeking remedies afterward. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on legal practice in the technology sector and is skilled in handling disputes involving computing power contracts, data compliance, and intellectual property. If you are facing issues such as GPU lease price increases, substandard equipment, or breach of contract claims, please feel free to consult us. We will develop contract review, negotiation strategies, and litigation plans from a professional perspective to safeguard your commercial interests.
