On June 16, the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on Wu Shengwei v. iQiyi and Rongtai Law Firm on privacy and personal information protection disputes. At the beginning of 2020, as a VIP member of iQiyi, Wu Shengwei believed that his purchased VIP membership rights should include the privilege to watch trending drama such as "Joy of Life" firstly on the platform. However, iQIYI's "pay-as-ahead-on-demand" model requires additional payment to watch the latest episodes, which damages the rights of its members. Therefore, it sued to the Court to confirm the invalidity of the relevant terms and request iQiyi to cancel the advance-on-demand function. Rongtai Law Firm participated in the litigation as iQiyi's entrusted litigation agency. On June 2, 2020, the Beijing Internet Court ruled to support his litigation request partially. iQiyi refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal. On December 9, 2020, Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court issued a second-instance ruling and upheld the original judgment. Since then, Wu Shengwei argued that in the course of the above-mentioned "paid advance on-demand" case, iQiyi and Rongtai Law Firm checked and submitted to the Court Wu Shengwei's login records and movie viewing records on the iQiyi platform. The act infringed the legal rights and interests of his personal information and data, so Wu sued to the Court.

On January 25, 2021, Shanghai Qingpu People's Court made the first-instance judgment: do not support Wu Shengwei's litigation request. Wu Shengwei appealed to the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court. On June 16, the Court held that in the pre-trial proceedings of the private trial of iQiyi and Rongtai Law Firm, to prove their claims, they submitted and displayed Wu Shengwei's login and viewing record on the iQiyi platform to the Court. There is no subjective fault of infringing on the rights of others, and the purpose is legal and legitimate. The act does not constitute an infringement, so the second-instance judgment was made: the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was upheld.