China VPS and downstream liability (2026): geo-risk for bulk assets in Bubble after BIAIG generation

Context for Bubble builders

On 7 September 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued Fa Fa〔2026〕No. 10 — the first national adjudication guidance on AI-related civil disputes (24 articles). It does not replace your Bubble architecture, but it sharpens how courts assess the post-generation chain: who stores files/URLs, who enables public access, and what preventive measures existed.

Public summaries describe a fault-based default under the Civil Code, multi-factor allocation of copyright liability among AI developers, service providers, and users when outputs infringe existing works, adapted notice-and-takedown for generative-AI providers (including stopping generation and blocking related prompts after a qualified notice), and heightened evidentiary expectations (prompt design, similarity, and in some defenses training-data disclosure).

The Opinions deliberately leave open whether AI-generated outputs are copyrightable and whether unauthorized training is infringement — unlike the downstream infringement allocation rules, which are addressed.

Not the Midjourney litigation angle

In the US, Disney et al. v. Midjourney (C.D. Cal., filed 2025, active discovery in 2026) focuses on vendor-centric direct/secondary copyright theories and training/output disputes under US law; Midjourney’s terms shift risk via disclaimers, liability caps, and user indemnification.

China’s 2026 package is a different jurisdiction and emphasis: layered downstream allocation, gen-AI notice duties, and pre-2026 practice (Guangzhou and Hangzhou Internet Courts) where platform operators could be liable for user-generated infringing images when control, commercial benefit, and preventive measures were lacking — including removal of stored generated images and LoRA models.

For a Bubble app operator, the compliance surface is usually storage/delivery, not upstream training — not a straight transplant of the Midjourney vendor story.

BIAIG → Bubble: where risk lands

Editorial model (internal): BIAIG as the generation layer; Bubble as storage/delivery (file fields, public URLs, CDN). Worth reading next: ByteDance–MPA guardrails on Seedream/Seedance: bulk. Worth reading next: ByteDance–MPA guardrails on Seedream/Seedance: bulk.

Bubble’s public docs place default app/file hosting on US AWS with Cloudflare CDN (cdn.bubble.io). Under the Acceptable Use Policy, the app operator must comply with applicable laws (IP, privacy, export controls); the platform can suspend or remove content.

Bulk assets after generation are what downstream guidance and Chinese court practice often tie to stored/disseminated copies — not only “generate again.” A closer look: Mixboard offline on 28.09: exporting. A closer look: Mixboard offline on 28.09: exporting.

Scout pass: no verified public documentation in this research pass for BIAIG fallback routing specifics or separate Merchant clauses. Any BIAIG ↔ geo routing linkage in your workflow should be labeled editorial/internal until primary sources are supplied.

“China VPS” and geo-risk — without routing folklore

Mainland hosting generally implicates ICP filing/licensing for public web services and domestic content-regulatory context. That differs from Bubble’s default US hosting — but offshore hosting does not zero out exposure if content is accessed or enforced against in China, or if Chinese personal data is processed cross-border (PIPL/CBDT; certification measures effective 1 January 2026 per secondary summaries).

Open question: whether assets on a mainland China VPS vs default US Bubble hosting materially increases copyright or content-security exposure for the same URLs depends on facts and classification (generative-AI “provider” vs information-storage / network-dissemination ISP). SPC Opinions center on developers/providers/users in generation chains; earlier cases blended platform and generation features.

Fallback routing (BIAIG or other internal routers) to offshore-generated assets for Chinese users — legal effect not verified in the Scout packet; do not treat “avoid mainland disk” as a compliance strategy by itself.

Document in your workflow (practical checklist)

1. Prompt lineage — prompt text/version, model and provider identity, timestamps, user/account attribution (courts weigh these records; logging reduces evidentiary gaps — aligned inference in the risk memo).
2. Upstream ToS — output license, acceptable use, indemnification and caps; Midjourney-style shifts do not remove operator duties under Bubble’s AUP or local law.
3. Generation vs storage copy — separate records for where content was generated vs what was uploaded to Bubble file fields; public vs signed URLs.
4. Labeling/metadata — Generative AI Interim Measures (2023) Art. 9/12 assign provider and labeling duties; open question if labels are stripped before Bubble upload.
5. Notice-and-takedown playbooks — not only stopping future generation: delete/block stored URLs, disable public file links, audit bulk exports/backups. Hangzhou orders included deletion of published infringing images and models (fact in packet).
6. Geo routing decisions — document why Chinese users hit which endpoint (performance vs compliance intent), without invented SLAs.
7. Marketplace/Merchant pattern — Marketplace Policies show seller indemnification in some product contexts; for generated bulk inventory, assume first-line compliance, not passive hosting. A closer look: Midjourney litigation 2026: vendor risk. A closer look: Midjourney litigation 2026: vendor risk.

ISP safe harbor — cautious expectations

Civil Code Art. 1195 safe harbor and IPKEY materials distinguish cloud/storage ISPs: forward-notice may be a “necessary measure” rather than blind takedown. For pure object storage/CDN where the operator did not generate content but enables public access, application in China remains case-specific — not automatic immunity.

What not to do

• Do not sell Hangzhou/Guangzhou line cases as generic “Bubble precedent” — those defendants had specific control facts as Chinese AI/platform operators.
• Do not assume AI outputs are free of third-party rights (SPC deliberate gap).
• Do not substitute legal review with routing hacks, especially without primary docs on BIAIG fallback.

Bottom line

After September 2026, China’s vector is downstream allocation + stored-copy enforcement + gen-AI notice duties. The US Midjourney line is upstream vendor contract and training/output theories. Bubble builders with bulk generated URLs need a documented chain (prompt → provider terms → upload → takedown), a clear split between generation and hosting, and no overconfidence in geo fallback without verified sources.

Primary orientation: SPC announcement 2026-09-07 · Bubble hosting · Bubble AUP