Fabricating the rumor that a typhoon in Wenshan, Yunnan killed 20,000 people led to an investigation; a Shenzhen lawyer explains the criminal and administrative liability for spreading rumors online.
Lead
On September 1, 2026, a message from Wenshan, Yunnan, claiming that a "Category 12 typhoon caused 20,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries" rapidly spread online, drawing widespread attention and panic. After verification by local cyberspace and public security authorities, the information was found to have been posted by a netizen surnamed Li, who spliced together disaster-related videos and fabricated false copy. In view of Li's proactive cooperation with the investigation and his deletion of the false information on his own, the public security organ ultimately gave him criticism and education. In the same batch of notices, a person surnamed Huang in Xiaogan, Hubei, was given an administrative penalty for fabricating the location of a car accident, and among five typical cases in Kaifeng, Henan, some individuals were administratively detained for fabricating flood-related rumors and posting AI-generated fake videos of a "major criminal case arrest scene." Viewed together, these cases point to an increasingly clear signal: the legal cost of spreading rumors online is rising substantially. As Shenzhen lawyers who have long handled cybercrime and compliance cases, we have noticed that many parties do not realize until they are summoned that casually splicing together a video and adding a sensational caption may trigger consequences far beyond a platform ban.
I. Legal Characterization of Rumor-Mongering: The Ladder from Administrative Penalties to Criminal Liability
Online rumor-mongering is not a single act in legal terms, but rather a composite of acts that may simultaneously trigger multiple laws. The lightest tier is Article 25, Item 1 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law: those who spread rumors, falsely report dangerous situations, epidemics, or police emergencies, or otherwise intentionally disrupt public order shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days, and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than 500 yuan. This is precisely the provision applied in the case of Huang某某 in Hubei, who fabricated the location of a car accident, and Wang某某 in Kaifeng, who exaggerated rainwater accumulation during a rainstorm.
If it escalates, it could potentially fall under the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false information as stipulated in Article 291-1, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law: whoever fabricates false information about an emergency, epidemic, disaster, or police situation and disseminates it on information networks or other media, or knowingly disseminates such false information on information networks or other media, thereby seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or surveillance; if serious consequences are caused, the sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years. The information fabricated by Li in Wenshan, Yunnan, was precisely "disaster" information and reached a level that attracted widespread attention. The reason he ultimately received only criticism and education is that he actively cooperated and promptly deleted it, without causing serious disruption of social order, which constitutes a notably minor circumstance.
Going further, if the act of spreading rumors targets a specific enterprise or product, it may also constitute the crime of damaging commercial reputation or product reputation; if rumors are used to commit extortion, it may simultaneously violate the crime of extortion. In Kaifeng, a person surnamed Yu posted an AI-generated video titled "Xiping Major Criminal Case Arrest Scene," which, in addition to disrupting public order, may also involve damage to the image of the judiciary.
Two, AI-generated rumors and the motive of "chasing traffic"—why do they become aggravating circumstances?
One detail in this batch of notices deserves vigilance: the fake video posted by Yu was AI-generated. In the past, spreading rumors required certain capabilities in obtaining materials and editing, but today generative AI has lowered the threshold for fabricating something out of nothing to almost zero. However, in legal assessment, the upgrading of technical means does not reduce liability; instead, it may become an aggravating circumstance.
From a subjective perspective, the notices repeatedly use the phrase "to gain attention and attract followers." In judicial practice, the motive of seeking profit or driving traffic is an important basis for assessing an actor's subjective culpability. There is a clear difference in the determination of liability between mere miscommunication and deliberate fabrication, especially when accompanied by sensational headlines designed to induce sharing. When representing such cases, Shenzhen lawyers typically focus on whether the actor knew the information was false, whether they actively processed it, and whether they obtained traffic revenue from it—details that directly affect the direction of the case.
From an objective standpoint, AI-generated fake videos tend to be more deceptive, and their speed and scope of dissemination far exceed text-based rumors. Once they are deemed to "seriously disrupt social order," the likelihood of criminal prosecution rises significantly. Since 2024, criminal cases involving accountability for AI-generated rumors have emerged in multiple regions, and this trend has become even clearer in 2026.
III. The Respective Legal Boundaries of Platforms, Enterprises, and Ordinary Internet Users
For ordinary internet users, the most important understanding to establish is this: forwarding does not equal exemption from liability. Articles 1025 and 1026 of the Civil Code set out the boundaries between news reporting, public opinion supervision, and the protection of reputation rights. Although they mainly address civil torts, the logic of the duty of care behind them applies equally to the spread of rumors. Forwarding information while knowing or having reason to know that it is false may result in administrative and even criminal liability.
For enterprises, the risks are mainly reflected at two levels. First, inappropriate remarks made by individual employees on social platforms may be traced back to the company, especially when competitors or industry events are involved, as rumor-mongering through corporate accounts or employee accounts may trigger commercial defamation lawsuits. Second, if an enterprise releases false information to "dispel rumors" while responding to public opinion, this may likewise constitute a new violation of the law. As a city with a dense concentration of internet companies, Shenzhen has made corporate public opinion compliance a routine issue in legal work.
For platforms, Articles 12 and 47 of the Cybersecurity Law clearly establish the obligation of network operators to stop transmitting illegal information and take measures such as elimination when they discover it. If a platform fails to fulfill this obligation, it may face administrative penalties.
IV. How the Defamed Party Can Safeguard Their Rights: Practical Advice from a Lawyer
If you are the victim of a rumor, the first step is to preserve evidence. Notarize the defamatory content or use a trusted timestamp to record the publishing account, publication time, read count, and share count. The second step is to complain to the platform and demand deletion, while also reporting it to the local cyberspace administration and public security authorities. The third step is to choose civil litigation, administrative reporting, or criminal reporting based on the extent of the harm.
In Shenzhen's judicial practice, the amount of compensation in reputation right disputes is directly related to the scope of rumor dissemination, the actor's subjective malice, and the degree to which the victim's social evaluation is diminished. For enterprises, determining losses from commercial defamation often requires professional auditing and assessment support. Such work is relatively difficult for parties to handle on their own.
Cyberspace is not a lawless domain—this statement has been increasingly substantiated by a growing number of penalty cases. Whether it's an internet user casually splicing together videos or a content creator hoping to ride a trending topic for traffic, before pressing the publish button, it's worth asking: Can I bear the legal consequences of this information? Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long handled cases involving online infringement, criminal defense, and corporate compliance. If you encounter related legal issues, it is advisable to consult a professional lawyer as early as possible to prevent a minor oversight from escalating into a major problem.
