伴随中国出海APP在海外市场相继遭受严格审查，中国互联网企业该如何做好海外法律风控？遭遇相关审查时又有哪些常用的救济思路？
发生了什么？
自6月底以来，诸多运营于海外市场的中国手机应用软件（APP）先后在印度和美国遭受不同程度的封禁或交易限制，近期，又有包括澳大利亚、日本等在内的其他国家表示考虑对中国APP施加类似禁令。
一时间，运营“出海”APP的中国互联网企业发现，除了常规的商业风险考量，政治和法律风险成为了影响其业务在海外市场运营甚至存续的关键。
实际上，在任何市场做生意都需要遵守当地法律法规，因为不合规而引发法律风险也并非新鲜事。天元律师事务所合伙人孙彦律师和李然律师指出，中国APP在海外市场实际存在着一系列常见的法律风险。
“（这包括）知识产权侵权、不正当竞争、反垄断、数据合规等。”他们说，“这些风险也是APP的特性决定的，因为APP本身就涉及到产品开发、用户数据抓取及与应用商店其他APP竞争等问题。”
在这种背景下，此轮封禁仍有其特殊性。
“不可否认这些封禁事件很大程度基于政治动因，封禁理由也主要是‘国家安全’。但在暂不考虑封禁行为本身的合法性或合宪性情况下，外国政府决定此轮封禁也是基于某些法律的授权。”两位律师说。
以印度为例，“印度政府就是根据2000年《信息技术法》第69章及2009年《信息技术（阻止公众获取信息之程序和保障措施）规则》第9条，对超过100个中国APP进行封禁，且相关名单还在持续扩大”。
两位律师继而指出：“相较于常见法律风险，封禁APP意味着直接把这些应用封杀出局，强制退出该国市场，这对受影响的互联网企业是毁灭性打击。”
可能存在的救济途径有哪些？
法律风险必然对应相关的法律救济途径。孙律师和李律师以近期封禁中国APP事件为例，从印度和美国两个角度，梳理了可能的救济方法。
对于出海印度的中国APP，两位律师“建议受影响企业优先考虑印度当地救济，若当地救济无果，可进一步考虑国际救济的可能”。
具体来说，目前印度针对中国APP的封禁正处于“审查委员会审查阶段”，企业在应对此类调查时，“应注意保护商业秘密，并考虑申请审查委员会提供印度政府部门的封禁请求及其依据”。
如果禁令被审查委员会维持，下一步则“可考虑向印度最高院或高等法院申请违宪审查”。
最后，如果上述救济都无果，相关中国企业可“考虑根据2007年中印政府签署的‘关于促进和保护投资的协定’及其议定书，寻求可能的国际救济”。
涉及到美国市场的救济途径，两位律师指出情况“比较复杂”。
“中美没有双边投资协定，后续若有中国企业APP被美国封禁，则需要诉诸于美国国内法来寻求救济。”他们说。
由于美国可能通过《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）或发布新的国家紧急状态总统令的方式来封禁或限制，“救济方式将取决于封禁的理由和依据……需注意的是，美国外国投资委员会（CFIUS）有权对外国在美投资进行审查，甚至合理要求某APP强制出售”。
“当然，如果在审查过程中出现程序不正当等违宪情形，依然可以起诉挑战。”两位律师说。
律师有何建议？
频繁封禁和限制显然为中国互联网企业的全球化之梦蒙上阴影，对于那些业已或仍旧考虑出海的中国APP，律师在法律风控层面又有何建议？
孙律师和李律师指出，首先要把法律风险防控延展到海外运营的全流程中。不仅要提前了解当地法律、政策，规范在当地运营，并及时关注国际政治动态，还要“自出海前直至后续海外运营的整个过程，及时寻求律师及其他专业人士的建议，降低每项商业决定可能的法律风险”。
另一项以被当下情况回应的切实建议，则是“考虑实际运营与当地的商业主体合作，甚至交由第三方或当地商业主体运营，适当聘请当地员工管理企业，尤其是法律、合规、管理、技术等方面的人员，处理好与当地政府、员工的关系”。
当然，在做好守法的前提下，如果在海外遭遇纠纷，也可以考虑不畏应战，“及时聘请专业律师，通过法律救济渠道充分维护自身合法权益”。两位律师说。
Under scrutiny in overseas markets, Chinese app makers need new approaches to thrive internationally
Chinese apps today face intense scrutiny, if not outright bans, in certain key overseas markets. Lawyers say that the situation demands that they adjust their thinking about how they operate in certain countries, and come up with fresh strategies for the same.
Since June, Chinese mobile applications have faced restrictions or outright bans in overseas markets like India and the U.S. And other countries like Australia and Japan have been hinting that they are considering the same.
This means that Chinese Internet companies with overseas operations do not just have to worry about normal business risks, they also have to take political and legal risks more seriously into consideration.
In fact, every company operating in overseas markets must comply with local laws, and risks brought about by failing to do so are becoming increasingly common.
According to Sun Yan and Li Ran, two partners at Tian Yuan Law Office, there are, at the basic level, some common legal risks faced by Chinese apps in foreign markets.
“(These include) intellectual property infringement, un-fair competition, antitrust, data compliance etc. Those risks are closely related to the characters of apps, the operations of which usually touch issues of product development, collection of users’ data and competition with other apps in the Apps stores,” they say.
However, these most recent bans are different.
“We can’t deny that those bans are to a great extend due to political reasons, and foreign governments are banning those apps on ‘national security’ grounds. But they did also impose those bans within the legal systems,” Sun and Li say.
Take India as an example. “The Indian government has banned more than 100 Chinese apps according to the Chapter 69 of the Information Technology Act and article 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009. And they’re still expanding the list,” they add.
POSSIBLE REMEDIES
Legal risks usually have corresponding legal remedies. Sun and Li point to a series of possible remedies in both India and the U.S.
For Chinese apps operating in India, they suggest “affected companies seek local remedies first. If that is not working, they should also consider remedies on the international level.”
To be more specific, Chinese apps are currently being reviewed by a government-constituted committee in India. When facing those investigations, companies should “pay attention to the protection of trade secrets, and also apply to the committee to provide concrete reasons behind the ban.”
If the ban was upheld by the committee, then companies could “apply for constitutional review to the Supreme Court of India.”
Finally, if all endeavours failed, Chinese companies could consider “possible international remedies stipulated by the Sino-Indian Bilateral Investment Trade signed in 2007,” they say.
However, possible legal remedies in the U.S. are “rather complicated.”
“Since there’s no similar bilateral investment treaty between China and the U.S., companies can only seek remedies under U.S. domestic laws,” Sun and Li say.
Besides, considering the U.S. can issue bans according to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and by issuing president executive orders, “companies should take corresponding remedies according to the specific situation … It should also be noted that CFIUS also have the power to investigate foreign investments, even force foreign companies to sell their apps businesses in the U.S.”
KNOW THE LAWS IN ADVANCE
These bans have put the skids on the globalization dreams of Chinese Internet companies. For those who are already or are planning to do business overseas, how can they tackle these legal risks, given the current situation?
Sun and Li suggest that companies should extend the mindset of tackling legal risks to the whole lifecycle of their overseas operations. They should gain knowledge of local laws and policies in advance and adjust their operations accordingly, and also “seek for advice from legal experts in the whole process to mitigate the legal risks behind every single business decision.”
Their second suggestion relates to building a rapport with the local authorities.
“Chinese companies could consider collaborating with local business entities to actually run the business. They should use local talent to manage the branch, therefore to maintain a good relationship with the local government,” they say.
Of course, companies land in disputes overseas even if they have done nothing wrong, they can always choose to defend themselves. “By hiring professional lawyers, companies have every reason to protect their due rights,” Sun and Li say.
**“法眼论道”是ALB的时评论专栏，邀请律师从法律及行业角度解读热点话题；文中观点不在任何意义上构成正式法律意见，欢迎垂询相关律师做进一步探讨；
欢迎联络yangxiaoixao.hu@tr.com，探讨更多热点话题。