When the AI assistant begins to "take action" on behalf of users in WeChat and e-commerce, it is identified by the platform as a plugin and the account is restricted. Behind this technical conflict lies a structural confrontation between operating systems and super apps regarding "digital sovereignty," reshaping the legal boundaries of data ownership, platform responsibility, and user authorization. (Background Summary: From AI to Labubu, from gold to cryptocurrency: Why is global speculation rampant?) (Background Supplement: Vitalik: Instead of banning AI data centers, it is better to have the capability to cut 99% of computing power at critical moments) When the "universal assistant" starts to "take action" for users, is it an efficiency tool or a rule breaker? A systematic conflict triggered by a "substitute operation" Recently, a low-key user experience has led to heightened tension between the AI industry and internet platforms—some smartphones equipped with AI assistants, when attempting to complete operations such as WeChat red packets and e-commerce orders through voice commands, are identified by the platform system as "suspected of using plugins," triggering risk warnings and even account restrictions. On the surface, this appears to be a technical compatibility issue; however, within the larger industry context, it fundamentally unveils a structural conflict surrounding "who has the right to operate smartphones and who controls user access." On one side are smartphone manufacturers and large model teams hoping to deeply embed AI into operating systems to achieve "seamless interaction"; on the other side are internet platforms that have long relied on app entry points, user pathways, and closed data loops to build business ecosystems. When the "universal assistant" begins to "take action" for users, is it an efficiency tool or a rule breaker? This question is being pushed to the legal forefront by reality. "The future has arrived" or "risk warning"—a "code war" happening behind the smartphone screen Recently, users who have received the latest AI smartphones may experience a dramatic scene of "one second future, one second warning": just as they marvel at its convenience, they receive risk warnings from platforms like WeChat. This all began with the deep cooperation between the "Doubao" large model under ByteDance and certain smartphone manufacturers. Today's voice assistants are no longer just checking the weather; they are super butlers that can "see the screen and simulate operations." Imagine a scenario where you only need to say to your phone, "Send a red packet in the Qingfei football team group" or "Help me buy the best deal on the new Adidas football shoes," and the phone will automatically switch apps, compare prices, and pay—without you having to lift a finger. This technology, based on "simulated clicks" and "screen semantic understanding," truly allows AI to take over the phone for the first time. However, this "smoothness" quickly hits the "iron plate" of internet platforms. Many users have found that when using Doubao AI to operate WeChat, they trigger account restrictions and even receive warnings of "suspected plugin use." E-commerce sites like Taobao are also highly vigilant against this kind of automated access. A blogger likened it: AI is like a butler running errands for you, but is stopped by mall security: "We do not serve robots." Users are puzzled: Why can't I use my own phone and my authorized AI to do the work? The platform maintains: My ecosystem, my security, does not allow external "substituted operations." This seemingly small friction of technical compatibility is, in fact, another milestone game in the history of Chinese internet. It is no longer a simple competition for traffic but a direct collision between operating systems (OS) and super apps regarding "digital sovereignty." The dimensionality reduction strike of business logic—when the "walled garden" encounters the "wall breaker" Why is the reaction of big companies like Tencent and Alibaba so intense? This can be traced back to the core business model of mobile internet—the "walled garden." The commercial foundation of social, e-commerce, and content platforms lies in monopolizing access and user time. Every click and every browse is key to ad monetization and data accumulation. The emergence of system-level AI assistants like Doubao is a direct challenge to this model. It is a profound game about "entry points" and "data." AI smartphones have touched the core business lifeline of internet giants, mainly for three reasons: 1. The "click icon" crisis: When users only need to speak, AI directly completes the task, and the app itself may be bypassed. Users no longer need to open the app to browse products or view ads, which means that the ad exposure and user attention economy that the platform relies on for survival will be significantly weakened. 2. The "parasitic" acquisition of data assets: AI operates and reads information by "seeing" the screen without needing the platform to open interfaces. This is equivalent to bypassing traditional cooperation rules and directly acquiring the content, products, and data that the platform has heavily invested in building. From the platform's perspective, this is a form of "free riding," and it may even use this data to train its AI models. 3. The "gatekeeper" of traffic distribution changes hands: In the past, the power of traffic distribution was held by the super app. Now, system-level AI is becoming the new "master switch." When users ask, "What do you recommend?" AI's answers will directly determine where commercial traffic flows, which is enough to reshape the competitive landscape. Therefore, the platform's warnings and protections are not merely simple technical exclusions but a fundamental defense of their business ecosystem. This reveals a deep-seated contradiction between technological innovation and platform rules that has yet to be reconciled. Preparing for a storm—an in-depth analysis of the four legal risks of AI smartphones As legal practitioners, when we view the dispute between AI smartphones and big companies, we can see four unavoidable core legal risks: 1. Competition boundaries: Technical neutrality does not equal no responsibility for intervention. The current focus of the controversy lies in whether AI operations constitute unfair competition. According to the (Anti-Unfair Competition Law), using technical means to hinder others' normal service of online products may constitute infringement. The "plugin" risk: In the "Tencent vs. 360 case" and many recent "automatic red packet grabbing plugin cases," judicial practice has established a principle: unauthorized modification or interference with the operating logic of other software, or increasing server load through automation, may constitute unfair competition. If AI's "simulated clicks" bypass ads or circumvent interactive verification, affecting platform services or business logic, it may also face infringement recognition. Traffic and compatibility issues: If AI guides users away from the original platform to use its recommended services, it may involve "traffic hijacking." Conversely, if the platform indiscriminately bans all AI operations, it may also need to argue whether such bans are reasonable and necessary self-defense. 2. Data security: Screen information is sensitive personal information. AI needs to "see" the screen content to execute commands, which directly touches on the strict regulations of (Personal Information Protection Law). Handling sensitive information: Screen content often includes sensitive personal information such as chat records, account information, and location trails, which legally requires obtaining the user's "separate consent." Whether the commonly seen "blanket authorization" in AI smartphones is valid is in doubt. If AI "sees" and processes private chat information while executing booking commands, it may violate the "minimum necessity" principle. Responsibility subject ambiguity: Is data processing occurring locally on the phone or in the cloud? Once leaked, how will the responsibilities of smartphone manufacturers and AI service providers be divided? Current user agreements often do not clearly define this, creating compliance concerns. 3. Antitrust disputes: Does the platform have the right to refuse AI access? Future litigation may revolve around "essential facilities" and "refusal to deal." AI smartphone parties may argue that WeChat and Taobao have public infrastructure attributes, and refusing AI access without justifiable reasons may constitute abuse of market dominance, hindering technological innovation. The platform may counter that data openness must be based on safety and property protection...

#AI