The Burden of Proof Dilemma and institutional Improvement of AI Infringement of Personality Rights under the Black Box of Algorithms

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614318

Author(s)

Qian Xu

Affiliation(s)

The National Police University for Criminal Justice, Baoding, Hebei, China

Abstract

With the rapid development of deep intelligent production, the infringement of personality rights such as portrait rights, name rights, reputation rights and personal information rights by artificial intelligence products has gradually increased. The existence of algorithmic black boxes leads to an asymmetry in the evidential capacity between the parties and the algorithmic developers, and the "he who asserts must prove" burden of proof allocation rule is difficult to adapt to the requirements of the trial practice of online personality rights cases. To sum up, the current academic research on issues such as the regulation of algorithmic black boxes, AI compensation subjects and distribution principles, and the burden of evidence mainly focuses on the above three aspects, but it lacks multi-perspective integrated research, does not explore the root causes comprehensively and deeply, and is too general in the design of specific rules, and does not closely combine theory with judicial practice. The author aims to focus on the core proposition of how to balance the unfair distribution of evidence due to technological superiority, avoiding the two extreme solutions of "full responsibility of the plaintiff" and "reversal of burden of proof", and adhering to "matching risk with control and matching proof with responsibility", Create a stepwise dynamic burden of proof allocation rule and system supporting measures and specific situation guidelines of "first stage of proof - second stage of explanation - third stage of discretion" to reduce the difficulty of proof for rights holders while overcoming the predicament of "difficulty in proof", and coordinate the relationship between algorithmic rights protection and algorithmic innovation through gradient algorithmic explanation obligations. Ultimately achieve a balance between the comprehensive protection of personality rights and the sound development of the artificial intelligence industry.

Keywords

Algorithm Black Box; Artificial Intelligence Infringement of Personality Rights; Burden of Proof Dilemma; Dynamic Allocation of Burden of Proof

References

[1] Yuan Zeng. Governance Myths and Solutions of Algorithmic Black boxes [J]. Chinese Maritime Law Studies, 25,36(04):22-31. [2] Mei Xiaying. Fundamental Issues in AI Legislation: Computational Law Training and Human-Machine Relationships in Its Scenarios [J]. Jurist,2025,(06):16-30+191-192. [3] Wang Yanfang. Flaws and Reconstruction of the Burden of Proof System for Infringement of Trade Secrets [J]. China Legal Review,2023,(03):46-56. [4] Ling Qiushi, Ma Wanli, Zhang Hairu. Research on the Legalization Path of Algorithmic Discrimination in the Context of Artificial Intelligence: Typical Scenarios, Regulatory Dilemmas and countermeasures [J]. Finance and Economics Problem Studies,2025,(10):39-52. [5] Liu Jian, Wu Licai. Black Box and Regulation of Algorithmic Governance: A Perspective Based on the Governance Interface [J]. Learning and Practice,2025,(11):34-45. [6] Li Yongjun. On the Basic Norms of Claims in the Personality Rights Section of the Civil Code - Can and How to Distinguish It from the Norms of tort Liability? [J] Contemporary Law Chinese Studies,2022,36(02):19-30. [7] Yang Liu. Logical Transformation of Liability Allocation for Personality Rights Infringement in the Digital Age [J]. Jianghan Forum,2025,(12):135-140. [8] Liu Wenjie. Platform Attribution path for Agent Infringement of Personality Rights [J]. Social Sciences Journal,2026,(01):146-156+207+209. [9] Research Group of Beijing Internet Court. Legal determination of the Infringement of Voice Rights by AI-generated Sounds - in the case of Yin Moumou v. a certain intelligent technology company in Beijing et al. Personal Rights Infringement Case of Rights Infringement [J]. Application of Law,2024,(09):123-133. [10] Yang Xianbin. On Compensation for Mental Damages in Infringement of Personality Rights [J]. Comparative Law Studies,2025,(04):104-121. [11] Lu Ziyi. The allocation and implementation path of burden of proof in Criminal compliance cases [J]. Law of Finance and Economics,2022,(01):149-166. [12] Xu Weigong, Zhang Yajun. The development of human rights protection in cross-border personality rights infringement conflict law [J]. Human Rights,2023,(06):138-160. [13] Zhu Xiaofeng. On Constitutive Elements and Trade-off of Interests in the Determination of Liability for Infringement of Personality Rights [J]. Legal Review, 24,42(01):98-111. [14] MAO Muran, Dong Xiaomei. Institutional norms for Ethical risks of infringement of personal and property rights in information privacy [J]. Science & Technology Review, 25,43(04):75-81. [15] She Liyong, Liu Wei, Hu Bin, Yang Siqi, Zhu Chao. Analysis of the Application of the Inverted Burden of Proof System in the Determination of collusive bidding [J]. Construction Economy,2021,42(09):33-35.