Chinese Courts Rule Companies Cannot Fire Workers Simply to Replace Them With AI
Listen to the full version
Chinese companies cannot legally fire employees simply to replace them with cost-saving artificial intelligence, courts in the country have ruled, setting a significant precedent for labor rights as automation sweeps the tech sector.
A technology company’s effort to reassign and drastically cut the pay of an employee because their job could be automated by AI — which ultimately led to the worker’s dismissal — was deemed an illegal termination by courts in Hangzhou.
Unlock exclusive discounts with a Caixin group subscription — ideal for teams and organizations.
Save an extra $50. Introductory offer for new readers. Subscribe now.
- DIGEST HUB
Digest Hub
Back
- Hangzhou courts ruled tech firm's firing of employee Zhou illegal after rejecting AI-related pay cut from 25,000 to 15,000 yuan; upheld compensation.
- AI adoption not "objective major change" for termination; firms must retrain or reasonably reassign workers.
- Beijing case: AI replacing manual data role for Liu deemed deliberate choice, not unforeseeable; awarded compensation.
1. Chinese courts have ruled that companies cannot legally terminate employees solely to replace them with cost-saving AI, establishing a key precedent for labor rights amid tech sector automation.[para. 1][para. 2]
2. On April 28, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court published typical cases on AI firms and worker protections, featuring a prominent dispute involving a tech company and employee Zhou.[para. 3]
3. Zhou, in a quality-assurance role verifying AI-generated sentences, faced reassignment and a salary cut from 25,000 yuan ($3,655) to 15,000 yuan due to AI impacts; rejecting it led to dismissal.[para. 4]
4. Zhou won arbitration for wrongful termination compensation, leading the company to sue in Yuhang District Court after initial arbitration support.[para. 5]
5. Chinese labor disputes require prior mediation and arbitration per the Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law before litigation.[para. 6]
6. The Yuhang court ruled that AI cost savings do not qualify as legal termination grounds like business closure or poor performance, nor as an "objective major change" making contracts impossible, deeming the low-pay offer unreasonable and the firing illegal with compensation ordered.[para. 7][para. 8]
7. The Intermediate Court upheld the verdict on appeal.[para. 9]
8. Chinese labor law allows contract changes by mutual consent; unilateral terminations are limited to consent, misconduct, incompetence, or major unforeseeable changes with 30 days' notice or severance.[para. 11]
9. The court emphasized AI integration as a strategic choice, not a legal "objective major change" voiding contracts; AI should liberate labor and promote jobs while firms protect rights, suggesting retraining, reasonable reassignments with compensation, or worker upskilling.[para. 12][para. 13][para. 14]
10. Beijing Human Resources and Social Security Bureau highlighted a similar case on Dec. 26, 2025.[para. 16]
11. Liu, hired in July 2009 for manual map data entry, lost his role when the firm switched to AI data collection in early 2024, eliminating the division; dismissed in late 2024, Liu won arbitration compensation.[para. 17][para. 18]
12. The case turned on whether AI job elimination counts as an "objective major change" under Labor Contract Law.[para. 19]
13. Beijing guidelines define such changes as uncontrollable, unpredictable events like disasters or policies causing ruin, not business decisions.[para. 20]
14. The bureau ruled the AI pivot a deliberate, predictable strategy, not unforeseeable, so firing illegally shifted risks to the employee.[para. 21]
- MOST POPULAR
Sign in with Google
Sign in with Facebook
Sign in with 财新