Research on Strategies for Cross-border E-commerce Operators to Respond to TROs: From the Perspective of Litigation Based on AI-Generated Content as the Basis of Rights

Abstract

This paper examines a specific type of litigation brought in the United States by plaintiffs against Chinese cross-border e-commerce operators through Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), in which claims are often grounded in AI-generated content asserted as the basis of rights. Recent cases, including the “Baby Shark” dispute, are used as reference to discuss possible response approaches. From a procedural perspective, one line of defense concerns service of process under the Hague Service Convention and China’s related reservations. On this basis, it is often argued that service may not be properly effected, and that email-based service of a TRO on defendants located in China does not necessarily carry legal validity. From a substantive perspective, challenges may be raised regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated content. In particular, plaintiffs may need to demonstrate a sufficient degree of human involvement in the creation of the works in question. In addition, settlement decisions require careful evaluation in practice. In some situations, prioritizing litigation defense rather than early settlement may help avoid inflated settlement expectations by the opposing party. At the operational level, maintaining documentation of product design processes and authorization records is commonly viewed as important evidence for potential disputes. Taken together, these layered responses—covering procedural objections, substantive challenges, settlement considerations, and routine compliance practices—reflect a more structured defensive posture in responding to such TRO-based litigation.