Direct answer: A procurement price and cost-information confidentiality page is not a line saying "we take confidentiality seriously". The page should state: what counts as confidential (quotes/unit prices/discounts/rebates/tiered prices/comparison sheets/price databases/target prices/cost breakdowns/should-cost/tender and bid-opening records/contract prices); who may see it (procurement/cost/finance/legal/management/suppliers/external advisers); how it moves (single receiving channel, sealed/encrypted, minimum distribution, watermark, logs); what the contract says (NDA, purpose, scope, term, return/destruction, breach); how tender/opening/evaluation prevents leaks; system permissions and exit recovery; leak response; and what the website may and may not publish. On the law: Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2025 revision, effective 15 October 2025) defines trade secrets (not publicly known, commercial value, corresponding confidentiality measures); Article 501 of the Civil Code provides that trade secrets learned during contracting must not be disclosed or improperly used; the Supreme People's Court interpretation on trade-secret civil cases addresses "corresponding confidentiality measures", employees/former employees and proof. This article is current to 2026-11-08 and is a summary of public rules and page method, not legal advice; the law, contracts, confidentiality policy and court findings control.
This article is for procurement, cost, finance, legal, internal-control, IT and website teams at equipment, electronics, automotive-parts, medical-device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby. It covers how to write and accept a procurement price/cost-information confidentiality page. The usual gap is "classification, permissions, comparison-sheet distribution, cost-breakdown use, bid-opening records, exit recovery and leak response", ending with a page that only says "strictly confidential" — which neither proves "corresponding confidentiality measures" nor explains who is responsible when something goes wrong.
First classify: quotes, cost breakdowns, tender/opening records and supplier lists need separate levels. Then control access: need-to-know, project-based authorisation, logs. Finally keep evidence: NDA, watermark, versions, handover and a leak plan. "Strictly confidential" alone is not enough.
How does this page relate to quotation/RFQ, VA/VE, audit rights, supplier code and information-security pages?
The price-confidentiality page answers "which price/cost information must not leak, who may see it, how it moves and what happens on a leak"; the quotation/RFQ page answers "quote fields, validity and offer/invitation to treat"; the VA/VE page answers "how to reduce cost and how to use cost breakdown/should-cost"; the audit-right/books page answers "whether and how to audit, and how to keep confidentiality"; the supplier code page answers "business ethics, reporting and remediation"; the information-security/data-exchange page answers "data classification, access, incidents and return"; the tender page answers "tender/bid/opening/evaluation process"; the contract/quality-agreement page answers "NDA, quality, delivery and breach". Price confidentiality is "information governance" and cannot be replaced by a quotation or audit page.
Common breaks: quotes go to personal email; comparison sheets circulate in chat groups; cost breakdowns are forwarded casually; the floor price leaks before opening; supplier lists and shares are published; departing staff take the price database; external advisers have no NDA; the website advertises "full cost transparency"; after a leak, chats are simply deleted. The page separates "classification—receiving—comparison—cost—opening—contract—permissions—public boundary—response" so procurement/cost/finance/legal/IT share one vocabulary.
| Page | Question it answers | Key content | Cannot replace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price/cost confidentiality | What must not leak, who may see it, how it moves, what on a leak | Classification, permissions, NDA, opening, logs, response | Quotation/audit page |
| Quotation/RFQ | Quote fields, validity, legal nature | Unit price, validity, version, offer | Confidentiality/permissions |
| VA/VE | How to reduce cost and use cost breakdown | Cost model, should-cost, validation | Confidentiality boundary |
| Audit right/books | Whether and how to audit, confidentiality | Scope, notice, access, cost | Daily price flow |
| Supplier code | Business ethics, reporting, remediation | Anti-bribery, reporting, audit, exit | Price-data permissions |
| Information security/data exchange | Data classification, access, incidents, return | Classification, accounts, encryption, incidents | Procurement price scenarios |
| Tender | Tender/bid/opening/evaluation process | Documents, opening, evaluation, archive | Daily comparison confidentiality |
| Contract/quality agreement | NDA, quality, delivery, breach | Clauses, signing, versions | Runtime permissions |
Page relationships are editorial; contracts, confidentiality policy, permission matrix and court/arbitration findings control.
What counts as price/cost confidential information?
At least eight categories: (1) supplier quotes/unit prices/discounts/rebates/tiered prices/payment terms; (2) comparison sheets/price databases/historical prices/budget prices/target prices; (3) cost breakdowns (material/labour/overhead/yield/scrap/tooling amortisation/logistics/tax); (4) should-cost/cost models/cost-reduction plans; (5) bid documents/opening records/evaluation floor prices/pre-award prices; (6) contract prices/price-adjustment formulas/annual reductions/rebates; (7) supplier lists/shares/capacity/lead times; (8) personal information/customer data (subject to separate personal-information rules). After classification, set the level, need-to-know scope, retention period and external wording; not all prices share one level, and not every employee needs to see everything.
Acceptance checks: classification list; level; need-to-know; retention; external wording; owner; update date. Common gaps: only "price confidentiality"; quotes and costs merged; supplier lists omitted; no rules for departing staff/external advisers; public and internal wording conflict.
| Category | Typical content | Why confidential | Common leak point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quotes/discounts | Unit price/discount/rebate/tier/payment terms | Negotiating position and cost advantage | Personal email/chat |
| Comparison/price database | Comparison sheet/historical price/budget/target price | Exposes floor price and strategy | Shared drive/export |
| Cost breakdown | Material/labour/overhead/yield/scrap/tooling | Supplier's core operating information | Forwarded to other suppliers |
| Should-cost/model | Cost model/assumptions/cost-reduction plan | Target price and negotiating bottom line | External advisers/leavers |
| Tender/opening | Bid documents/opening records/floor price | Fair competition and pre-award price | Leak before opening |
| Contract price | Contract price/adjustment formula/annual reduction/rebate | Commercial terms and customer comparison | Contract sent out/scans |
| Supplier list/share | List/share/capacity/lead time | Supply-chain layout and leverage | Website/brochure |
| Personal/customer data | Contacts/accounts/orders/drawings | Separate personality/data rules | Forms/email/cloud drive |
Classification is editorial; the company confidentiality policy, contracts and applicable law control.
How should quotes, comparisons and the price database be protected?
Quotes: a single receiving channel (sealed/special mailbox/supplier portal), no private receipt by buyers; mark level, version and validity; no opening or forwarding before bid opening. Comparison: minimum distribution, numbering, watermark, read-only; price database authorised by role/project, with export and print logs; no personal email, personal cloud drive or chat groups. Supplier side: back-to-back confidentiality, never give A's quote to B; if benchmarking is necessary, provide only anonymised/aggregated ranges. Exceptions: obviously low prices or abnormal price patterns should be recorded and assessed for bid-rigging risk, but do not publicly accuse without evidence.
Acceptance checks: receiving channel; sealing/encryption; version/validity; comparison distribution; price-database permissions; transmission tools; supplier back-to-back; abnormal low-price handling. Common gaps: receiving quotes on WeChat; comparison visible to all; no price-database logs; personal cloud drive; sending A's screenshot to B; low price seen but not recorded.
| Control | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Receiving channel | Sealed/special mailbox/portal; no private receipt | Receipt record | WeChat/personal email |
| Sealing/encryption | No opening/forwarding before opening | Seal/encryption record | Opened early |
| Version/validity | Version, date, validity, withdrawal | Quote document | Old version mixed in |
| Comparison distribution | Numbering, watermark, read-only, minimum scope | Distribution record | Visible to all |
| Price-database permissions | Role/project-based, export logged | System log | No log |
| Transmission tools | Corporate email/controlled platform; no personal cloud | Tool list | Personal cloud |
| Supplier back-to-back | No cross-disclosure; anonymised benchmarking | NDA/rule | Screenshot to B |
| Abnormal low price | Record, review, assess bid-rigging risk | Review record | Seen but not recorded |
Controls are editorial; procurement policy, confidentiality policy and system permissions control.
How should cost breakdown/should-cost be protected and used?
First ask the purpose: VA/VE, target costing, localisation, second source or cost audit; different purposes need different granularity. Take only the minimum data relevant to the decision; do not demand formulas, customer lists or personal data unrelated to the decision. Sign an NDA/confidentiality clause before use, stating purpose, scope, recipients, retention, return/destruction; authorise internally by project; externally provide only anonymised/aggregated ranges, never A's cost to B. Keep model version, assumptions, data sources and reviewer; cost-reduction plans must not be bought with supplier cost leaks.
Acceptance checks: purpose; minimum necessary; NDA; use scope; recipients; anonymisation/aggregation; no cross-disclosure; model version/assumptions; retention/destruction. Common gaps: demanding the full cost stack; NDA signed but not enforced; cost sheet in chat; A's labour hours to B; no assumptions; no destruction at project end.
| Item | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | VA/VE/target cost/second source/audit, stated | Project/note | Unclear purpose |
| Minimum necessary | Only data relevant to the decision | Data list | Full stack demanded |
| NDA | Purpose/scope/term/return/destruction | NDA | Signed not enforced |
| Use scope | Project/role-based | Permission record | All staff can read |
| Recipients | List, handover, exit recovery | List/record | List unclear |
| Anonymise/aggregate | External only ranges/indices | Benchmark file | Forward as-is |
| No cross-disclosure | Never A's cost to B | Rule/training | Screenshot to B |
| Model version | Version/assumptions/source/review | Model file | No assumptions |
| Retention/destruction | Term, return, destruction record | Destruction record | No end-of-project action |
Cost-breakdown/should-cost use is editorial; the NDA, procurement policy and applicable law control.
How should tender/opening/evaluation prevent leaks?
Tender: seal/encrypt bid documents and log receipt time; do not open before the opening. Opening: follow the announced time/place, record attendees, seal status and read-out; e-bidding keeps encryption/decryption records. Evaluation: keep committee names confidential and sign conflict-of-interest declarations; floor/budget prices only for necessary staff; clarifications/negotiations must not disclose other bids; pre-award prices remain confidential; unsuccessful-bid notices must not list other prices. Archive: bids, opening records, evaluation sheets and clarification letters by project. Record bid-rigging signals and route to compliance/legal; do not publicly accuse unilaterally.
Acceptance checks: sealing/encryption; opening record; committee/conflict; floor-price scope; clarification/negotiation; pre-award; unsuccessful notice; archive. Common gaps: opened early; committee list leaked; floor price to all; negotiation reveals another price; notice includes prices; no records.
| Stage | Control | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bid documents | Seal/encrypt, receipt time, register | Register/seal | Opened early |
| Opening | Time/place/attendees/read-out record | Opening record | No record |
| Evaluation committee | Names confidential, conflict declaration | Declaration | List leaked |
| Floor/budget price | Only necessary staff | Permission record | Visible to all |
| Clarification/negotiation | Do not disclose other bids | Clarification letter | Reveals other price |
| Pre-award | Price confidential, single message | Communication record | Early commitment |
| Unsuccessful notice | No other prices/details | Template | Includes prices |
| Archive | Bids/opening/evaluation/clarification by project | File | Missing |
Tender controls are editorial; the tender documents, procurement policy and applicable law control.
Which confidentiality clauses should the NDA/contract contain?
At least: definition of confidential information (price/cost/technical/commercial/supplier list); purpose and scope; minimum necessary; exceptions (already public/lawfully obtained/court or regulator, with prompt notice); employee/subcontractor/adviser back-to-back; retention period; return/destruction; breach/damages/injunction; survival after termination; dispute resolution/governing law; personal information/cross-border separately; no circumvention. An NDA is not the end; you must be able to show "corresponding confidentiality measures": labels, permissions, logs, training, handover and audit.
Acceptance checks: definition; purpose/scope; exceptions; back-to-back; term; return/destruction; breach; survival; dispute; personal information/cross-border. Common gaps: narrow definition; no return/destruction; no back-to-back; weak remedy; ends on termination; personal data not addressed.
| Clause | What to write | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Price/cost/technical/commercial/supplier list | NDA | Too narrow |
| Purpose/scope | Purpose, minimum necessary, no secondary use | NDA/project | Too broad |
| Exceptions | Public/lawfully obtained/court order + notice | Clause | No exceptions |
| Back-to-back | Employees/subcontractors/advisers bound | Clause/list | No back-to-back |
| Term | Contract term + years after termination | Clause | Ends on termination |
| Return/destruction | Return/delete/destroy + written confirmation | Record | No destruction |
| Breach/damages | Damages/injunction/costs | Clause | Weak remedy |
| Survival | Confidentiality survives | Clause | Not agreed |
| Dispute | Jurisdiction/arbitration/governing law | Clause | Unclear |
| Personal data/cross-border | Separate terms, lawful basis, transfer limits | Clause/assessment | Mixed into price clause |
The clause list is editorial and is not a contract template or legal advice; legal review before signing.
How should permissions, systems and logs be accepted?
Permissions: a role matrix (procurement/cost/finance/legal/management/supplier/external adviser), minimum necessary, project-based, periodic review; real-name accounts, no shared accounts. Files: level labels, watermark, read-only, download/print restrictions; corporate email/IM/cloud tools, no personal accounts. Logs: access, export, print, forward and delete; exception alerts (bulk download/out-of-hours/external domain). People: onboarding training, timely recovery on exit/transfer/supplier exit; temporary access for third parties with an expiry. Cross-border: assess data export under applicable rules; do not put the price database on an overseas cloud casually.
Acceptance checks: role matrix; least privilege; accounts; file level/watermark; download/print; transmission tools; logs/alerts; exit/transfer; third parties; backup/cross-border. Common gaps: shared accounts; price database readable by all; no export log; no exit recovery; permanent adviser access; overseas cloud drive.
| Control | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role matrix | Define visibility by role/project | Matrix | No matrix |
| Least privilege | Only what the job needs | Authorisation record | All can read |
| Accounts | Real-name, no sharing, MFA | Account list | Shared account |
| File level/watermark | Label, watermark, read-only | Sample file | No label |
| Download/print | Restrict, approve, log | Log | Free export |
| Transmission tools | Corporate email/controlled platform; no personal cloud | Tool list | Personal cloud |
| Logs/alerts | Access/export/forward/delete logged | Log | No log |
| Exit/transfer | Timely recovery, handover, reminder | Checklist | No recovery |
| Third parties | Temporary access, expiry, NDA | Record | Permanent access |
| Backup/cross-border | Encryption, location, export assessment | Record | Overseas cloud |
Permission and system controls are editorial; the information-security policy and applicable law control.
How should the website page be written, and what must not be published?
Suggested sections: (1) scope and classification; (2) principles for using quotes/comparisons/cost information; (3) supplier and external-party requirements; (4) tender confidentiality; (5) permissions and logs; (6) leak reporting and response; (7) contact/reporting channel; (8) version/update date. The public page explains "principles, channels and boundaries" and does not publish specific prices/discounts/rebates/cost breakdowns/comparison sheets/price databases/supplier lists/shares/contract terms/bid documents/opening records/pending disputes; specifics are handled in controlled systems/contracts/supplier portals. Do not promise "absolute confidentiality/zero leaks/full cost transparency" if you cannot prove or deliver it.
The English page should use consistent terms (price confidentiality, cost information, trade secret, need-to-know, NDA, sealed bid, bid opening, evaluation committee, access log, data room, leak response) and state the cut-off date. It can link to quotation/RFQ, VA/VE, audit-right, supplier code, information-security, tender and contract-signing pages, but must not become a "we take confidentiality seriously" line.
| Section | What to write | Evidence | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Quotes/cost/comparison/tender/supplier list | Classification list | Only "price" |
| Principles | Legitimate purpose, minimum necessary, no cross-disclosure | Policy | Empty promise |
| Supplier requirements | NDA, back-to-back, return/destruction | NDA | Only "please keep it secret" |
| Tender | Sealing, opening, evaluation, unsuccessful notice | Process | Reveal other prices |
| Permissions/logs | Roles, least privilege, logs | Matrix/log | No records |
| Leak response | Report, isolate, evidence, legal measures | Plan | Delete records only |
| Contact/reporting | Email/phone/anonymous channel | Channel | No handler |
| Public boundary | No specific prices/costs/lists | Permissions | Publish all |
The page structure is editorial; public statements must be true and verifiable, and contracts, confidentiality policy and applicable law control.
How should a leak or exception be handled?
Steps: (1) detect/report (staff, supplier, customer, system alert); (2) isolate/stop loss (revoke access, freeze accounts, stop forwarding, seal files); (3) preserve evidence (logs, email, files, watermark, versions, chat records, lawfully obtained); (4) investigate (HR/legal/compliance/IT/business, external counsel/forensics if needed); (5) notify (affected suppliers/customers; personal-information rules may require notification/reporting); (6) legal/contract measures (letter, claim, injunction, report to authorities, in accordance with law); (7) review (policy, permissions, training, systems); (8) drill. Do not search, seize, publicly expose or delete records unilaterally; keep the response documented and reviewable.
Acceptance checks: reporting channel; isolation/stop loss; evidence preservation; investigation; notification; legal measures; review; drill. Common gaps: only delete chats; no account freeze; evidence lost; no notification; no review; no drill.
| Step | What to do | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detect/report | Staff/supplier/customer/system alert channel | Report record | No channel |
| Isolate/stop loss | Revoke access, freeze account, stop forwarding | Action record | Delete chats only |
| Evidence | Logs/email/files/watermark/versions | Evidence list | Evidence lost |
| Investigate | HR/legal/compliance/IT/business | Investigation report | No owner |
| Notify | Affected parties/personal-data rules | Notice record | No notice |
| Legal measures | Letter/claim/injunction/report | Legal documents | Delay |
| Review | Policy/permissions/training/systems | Remediation record | No review |
| Drill | Tabletop/simulated leak | Drill record | No drill |
The response steps are editorial and not legal advice; the law, contracts and company policy control.
Go-live acceptance checklist
Eleven checks: classification/level; role matrix; quote receiving; comparison distribution; cost-breakdown NDA/scope; opening records; contract/NDA clauses; system logs; exit/transfer recovery; public boundary; leak plan/drill. Each needs evidence and a review date. The pass standard is not "the page says strictly confidential", but that procurement/cost/finance/legal/IT can judge what must not leak, who may see it, how it moves and whom to call when something goes wrong.
Before go-live, run a tabletop exercise with a real (redacted) project: quote receiving → comparison → cost breakdown → opening → contract → permissions → exit → leak report → response. Then simulate a mis-sent comparison sheet, a cost sheet forwarded to another supplier, and a departing employee taking the price database, to see whether the page and policy work.
| Check | Pass standard | Evidence | If failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification/level | Quotes/cost/tender/list classified | Classification list | Add classification |
| Role matrix | Role/project-based access | Matrix | Add matrix |
| Quote receiving | Single channel, sealed/encrypted | Receipt record | Change channel |
| Comparison distribution | Numbering/watermark/read-only/minimum scope | Distribution record | Tighten |
| Cost breakdown | NDA/purpose/scope/destruction | NDA/record | Add NDA |
| Opening records | Time/attendees/read-out/archive | Record | Add record |
| Contract clauses | Definition/term/return/breach | Contract | Amend |
| System logs | Access/export/forward/delete logged | Log | Enable logs |
| Exit recovery | Access/files/reminder | Checklist | Recover |
| Public boundary | No prices/costs/lists published | Page/permissions | Take down |
| Leak plan | Report/isolate/evidence/notify/review | Plan/drill | Add plan |
The acceptance list is editorial; contracts, confidentiality policy, permission matrix and applicable law control.
Who should read it, who should not, and what decisions does it support?
For procurement, cost, finance, legal, internal-control, IT and website teams at equipment, electronics, automotive-parts, medical-device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby; also for companies handling "quote leaks, comparison sheets circulating, cost breakdowns forwarded, pre-opening leaks, departing staff taking the price database". Not for teams that do not involve supplier quotes/cost, or that want one page to replace legal advice, a confidentiality policy or technical measures.
Read it if: building a price-confidentiality page; only writing "strictly confidential"; sending quotes to personal email; comparison sheets visible to all; cost breakdowns forwarded casually; pre-opening leaks; supplier lists published; no exit recovery; deleting records after a leak. Not suitable if: treating "NDA signed" as "confidentiality achieved"; treating "price confidentiality" as "no benchmarking"; treating "cost breakdown" as "safe to give other suppliers"; treating "transparency" as "publish all prices". Supports: classification/level, permissions, receiving, comparison, cost, opening, contract, logs, exit, public boundary and leak-response self-checks.
FAQ
How does procurement price confidentiality relate to trade secrets?
Price/cost information may constitute a trade secret under Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2025 revision, effective 15 October 2025) if it is "not publicly known, has commercial value, and the rights holder has taken corresponding confidentiality measures"; Article 501 of the Civil Code also provides that trade secrets or other information that should be kept confidential learned during contracting must not be disclosed or improperly used, whether or not the contract is formed. Whether it qualifies, and whether it can be protected, depends on the information, measures, acquisition method and loss; this article does not decide specific cases.
Can a supplier's quote be shown to another supplier?
Usually not. A quote may contain the supplier's trade secrets and negotiating bottom line; showing A's quote to B may breach the NDA/confidentiality clause and damage trust. If benchmarking is necessary, provide only anonymised/aggregated ranges or indices, and record the purpose, scope and approval; do not give other suppliers the original file, screenshot, supplier name or reversible detail.
Is an NDA always required for cost breakdown/should-cost?
Recommended, at least covering purpose, scope, recipients, retention, return/destruction and breach. An NDA is not enough by itself; you also need "corresponding confidentiality measures": labels, permissions, logs, training, handover and audit. If a supplier does not want to provide formulas, customer lists or other data unrelated to the decision, do not insist; take only the minimum necessary data.
How can tender/opening prevent price leaks?
Seal/encrypt bid documents and register receipt; do not open before the opening; record attendees, seal status and read-out; keep committee names confidential and sign conflict-of-interest declarations; give floor/budget prices only to necessary staff; clarifications/negotiations must not disclose other bids; keep pre-award prices confidential; unsuccessful-bid notices must not list other prices; archive the whole process. Record bid-rigging signals and route to compliance/legal; do not publicly accuse unilaterally.
What if a departing employee takes quotes/cost files?
First follow the policy and contract: exit handover, access recovery, device/file return and confidentiality reminder; if an anomaly is found, use the leak plan to isolate, preserve evidence, investigate, notify and take contractual/legal measures in accordance with law. Whether a claim succeeds depends on whether the information is a trade secret, whether the company took corresponding measures, whether the employee owed confidentiality duties and how the information was obtained/used; do not search, seize or publicly expose unilaterally.
Should the website publish procurement prices, suppliers and costs?
Usually not specific prices/discounts/rebates/cost breakdowns/comparison sheets/price databases/supplier lists/shares/contract terms/bid documents/opening records/pending disputes. The public page can explain confidentiality principles, information classification, submission/reporting channels, supplier cooperation requirements and the update date; specifics are handled in controlled systems/contracts/supplier portals. Do not promise "absolute confidentiality/zero leaks/full cost transparency" if you cannot prove or deliver it.
What should we do first when a quote leaks?
First stop the loss and preserve evidence: revoke access, freeze accounts, stop forwarding, seal files; save logs, email, files, watermark, versions and chat records (lawfully obtained); form a team of HR/legal/compliance/IT/business to investigate; assess whether to notify affected suppliers/customers and whether personal information is involved; take letters, claims, injunctions or reports in accordance with law; finally review policy, permissions, training and systems. Do not just delete chats, and do not publicly accuse before verification.
One-sentence takeaway
The procurement price and cost-information confidentiality page on a Changzhou manufacturer's website is not about "we are strictly confidential"; it is about turning classification/levels, quote receiving, comparison distribution, cost-breakdown/should-cost use, tender/opening, NDA/contract, permissions/logs, exit recovery, public boundaries and leak response into a checkable list, so procurement/cost/finance/legal/IT can judge who may see what, how it moves and whom to call when something goes wrong.
Research method and limitations
This article is a summary of public rules and page method, not legal advice. It uses no unpublished quotes, cost breakdowns, comparison sheets, supplier lists, contract prices, bid documents or pending-dispute data; the tables and acceptance items are editorial and not legal conclusions. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Civil Code, the Supreme People's Court interpretation on the Civil Code contract part and the Supreme People's Court interpretation on trade-secret civil cases; the law, contracts, confidentiality policy, permission matrix and court/arbitration findings control. This article does not decide whether any specific price/cost information is a trade secret or whether any specific confidentiality clause is lawful or enforceable; companies should review item by item and consult professional lawyers.
Sources and basis
Current to 2026-11-08; the official pages below control.
- Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised 27 June 2025, effective 15 October 2025): Supreme People's Procuratorate. Article 10: definition of trade secrets and acts of infringement.
- Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Supreme People's Court. Article 501 confidentiality during contracting, Article 577 breach, Article 1165 fault-based tort.
- Supreme People's Court interpretation on applying the Civil Code contract part: Supreme People's Court. Contract formation, culpa in contrahendo and confidentiality-related rules.
- Supreme People's Court interpretation on trade-secret civil cases (Fa Shi [2020] No. 7): Supreme People's Court. Q&A with the IP Tribunal head introducing "corresponding confidentiality measures", employees/former employees and proof rules.