With the rapid development of the internet economy, electronic data has officially become one of the three major types of statutory evidence in China since 2013 onwards. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, information formed or stored in electronic media, such as emails, online chat records, microblogs, and text messages, falls under the category of electronic data.[1]

 

Evidence, as the basis for determining facts in a case, needs to meet requirements of authenticity, relevance, and legality. If any of these aspects is flawed, there is a risk of the court not accepting the evidence. Electronic data is no exception to this rule. However, unlike traditional evidence, electronic data can be easily deleted or modified. Therefore, effective collection and preservation of electronic data are essential to maximize its evidentiary value.

 

• 1. The Emergence of Third-Party Electronic Data Forensic Platforms

 

Traditionally, parties often choose to entrust notary offices, endorsed by government agencies, to authenticate the facts of a case and ensure the timeliness and legality of the evidence.[2] This is the traditional way of collecting and authenticating evidence. Even though notarization is a credible process, its costs are relatively high. If one only needs to authenticate a web page or a photo on a webpage, choosing notarization is costly, and there is a risk that self-collection may not be recognized or accepted by the court. From this need, third-party electronic data forensic platforms have emerged.

 

Third-party electronic data forensic platforms mainly use technologies such as timestamps and blockchain to collect and authenticate electronic data. Compared to traditional methods, parties can promptly, efficiently, and conveniently collect evidence themselves, avoiding the issues of arbitrary evidence collection and low credibility, which subsequently makes evidence collection costs less steep.

 

• 2. Evolution of Third-Party Electronic Data Forensic Platforms

Third-party electronic data forensic platforms mainly have two methods of evidence collection: timestamp collection and blockchain collection. The former binds the hash value of the to-be-certified electronic data with an authoritative timestamp source to generate a timestamp file, proving the generation time, integrity, and verifiability of the certified electronic data. The latter can also save the timestamp file to the blockchain. Based on the decentralized nature of the blockchain, the information recorded on the blockchain is more secure and reliable, representing an upgrade of timestamp technology.

 

Although these two methods use different technologies, in practice, they complement each other and provide new means and ideas for parties to collect evidence. For example, credible timestamps initially only provided centralized "sealing" services, but now they also provide comprehensive "timestamp + blockchain" services, further enhancing the reliability of electronic data collection.

 

• 3. Evidentiary Efficacy of Third-Party Electronic Data Forensic Platforms

The efficacy of the evidence collected on third-party electronic data forensic platforms was not widely acknowledged and accepted by the courts in its early stages. For example, in the case of Huagai Company v. Dawn House Company (No. (2015) Jing Zhi Min Zhong Zi No. 1868), the court did not recognize the efficacy of timestamp evidence.

 

In 2018, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts," explicitly confirming the evidentiary efficacy of third-party electronic data forensic platforms.[3] Additionally, with the establishment of judicial blockchain systems such as the Judicial Blockchain of Hangzhou Internet Court, Tianping Chain of Beijing Internet Court, and Wangtongfalian of Guangzhou Internet Court, along with the accumulation of experience in judicial trials, principles and standards for the examination of electronic data have gradually been formulated. In 2021, the detailed rules on the judicial review of electronic data evidence formulated by the Hangzhou Internet Court have been widely accepted.

 

However, to ensure the efficacy of the evidence, third-party electronic data forensic platforms still provide a dual-mode service of "blockchain + notarization." This is possibly due to The content of electronic data authenticated by a notary office should be confirmed by the People's Court as authentic, except for opposing evidence sufficient to overturn it.[4]Additionally, as there is no unified threshold for the admission of third-party electronic data forensic platforms, litigants may still argue that these platforms lack neutrality.

 

It can be observed, therefore, that the evidentiary efficacy of third-party electronic data forensic platforms is still not on par with notarization. In judicial practice, the court's assessment of the evidentiary efficacy of electronic data remains dependent on the specific facts of individual cases. While third-party electronic data forensic platforms are products that respond to market demands and facilitate the evidence collection needs of litigants, the standardization of admission qualifications for these platforms could further ensure that electronic data can exert greater influence in the judicial practice.

 

---

 

[1] See Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2022 Amendment) , article 116, issued on april 1, 2022, effective on april 10, 2022.

[2]See Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2021 Amendment) , article 72, issued on December 24, 2021, effective on january 1, 2022.

[3] See Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, article 11, issued on September 6, 2018, effective on September 7, 2018.

[4] See Provisions by the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures (2019 Amendment) , Article 94,
issued on december 25, 2019, effective on may 1, 2020.