01
Factual background & dispute
- Liang received inaccurate information about college applications.
- The conversation generated compensation language; Liang sought RMB 9,999.
- The provider supplied evidence of conspicuous warnings and reliability measures.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- Attribution of an automatically generated promise
- The applicable liability standard
- Proof of fault, loss and causation
03
Judicial finding & holding
- In this general-purpose chat, the generated promise was not the provider’s declaration of intent.
- Applying fault-based liability, the court found reasonable care and no proven loss or causation.
- The judgment became effective without appeal; company-authorised customer-service statements may require a different analysis.
Dates & procedural record
- Court-origin report published; the decision remains recorded at year precision.
04
Practical risk implications
01Separate general conversation from customer service authorised to communicate company commitments.
02Use prominent, timely warnings in high-impact contexts and retain reliability-testing evidence.
03Provide verification, correction and escalation processes, with complete conversation records.