Practical Dilemmas and Improvement Paths of the “Separate Consent” Rule in Personal Information Processing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614204

Author(s)

Jixuan Cui

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, Xinjiang University of Finance and Economics, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Abstract

With the rapid development of the digital economy, the problems of excessive collection and misuse of personal information have become increasingly prominent. The Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China innovatively introduces the “separate consent” rule, aiming to remedy the shortcomings of the traditional “bundled consent” approach in specific sensitive scenarios and to strengthen the control rights of data subjects. However, in judicial practice and commercial applications, “separate consent” faces various practical dilemmas, including formalization, consent fatigue, ambiguous boundaries, and inequality of subject status. From an interdisciplinary perspective of civil law and data law, this paper analyzes the normative connotation of “separate consent,” explores in depth the reasons for its ineffectiveness in practice, and proposes improvement paths. These include clarifying formal review standards, establishing a scenario-based application mechanism, introducing dynamic consent and withdrawal mechanisms, and strengthening the fiduciary duties of personal information processors. The aim is to restore the institutional vitality of the “separate consent” rule and achieve a dynamic balance between personal information protection and the circulation of data elements.

Keywords

Personal Information Protection Law; Separate Consent; Informed Consent; Scenario-based Theory

References

[1] Cheng Xiao. On Personal Consent in Personal Information Processing. Global Law Review, 2021, 43(06): 40–55. [2] Lin Huanmin. On the Private Law Nature and Normative Application of Data Subject Consent—Also on the Non-uniformity of Consent in the Civil Code. Journal of Comparative Law, 2023, (03): 142–154. [3] Wang Lizhi. Reflection on and Solutions to the “Informed Consent Dilemma” in Privacy Policies. Law and Social Development, 2023, 29(02): 210–224. [4] Yang Weiqin. The Institutional Logic, Normative Interpretation, and Enhancement of the Informed Consent Rule for Sensitive Personal Information. Finance and Law, 2024, (01): 100–115. [5] Chen Qian. On the “Contractual Necessity” Rule in Personal Information Processing. Administrative Law Review, 2023, (06): 134–145. [6] Yang Xu. The Restricted Application of the “Contractual Necessity” Rule in Personal Information Processing. Legal Science, 2023, (06): 85–98. [7] Fan Mingzhi. The Institutional Development of Public Interest Litigation for Personal Information Protection. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 2025, 43(01): 109–121. [8] Ma Gengxin. Improvement of the Personal Information Protection System in Data Transactions—Focusing on the “Informed Consent” Rule. Hebei Academic Journal, 2024, 44(02): 193–204. [9] Guo Zhilong, Li Wenhui. The Application Dilemma and Breakthrough Approaches of the Informed Consent Principle in the Digital Age. Rule of Law Society, 2021, (01): 26–36. [10] Liu Zhongxuan. Reasonable Limits of Personal Information Processing—A Contextual Analysis Based on the Principle of Necessity. Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law (Rule of Law Forum), 2021, 36(05): 150–160. [11] Feng Guo, Yan Haoyu. Theoretical Interpretation and Institutional Path of Fiduciary Duties of Data Trustees. Finance and Law, 2024, (02): 3–18.