"Swine killing plate" and other telecom network frauds emerge in endlessly, and network platforms often adopt algorithm technology to filter bad information. If the algorithm causes an "own dragon", does the platform need to bear the responsibility? Recently, the Beijing Internet Court concluded the first case involving the infringement of personal rights and interests caused by the algorithm risk control system, and determined that the misjudgment of the defendant's dating platform did not constitute an infringement on users. Mr. Li is an employee of a financial company. He registered an account on a dating platform, submitted a real photo as his avatar, and verified his mobile number with his real name. Mr. Li said that during his normal use of the platform, his account was closed, and other netizens also received a prompt, saying that Mr. Li's account "may be abnormal" and "do not have money dealings with it". Mr. Li believes that this situation has led many friends to believe that he is a liar and his reputation has suffered. He appealed to the court to claim that the platform's implementation of algorithm technology caused a miscarriage of judgment and infringed his reputation, and requested the platform to publicly apologize to him for clarification and compensate him for the loss of 20000 yuan. Why was Mr. Li given a title? The operator of the defendant's dating platform said that Mr. Li was repeatedly detected in a short period of time in the process of chatting with other users about high-frequency words involved in "killing pig dish" fraud cases such as "finance", "fund", "adding friends", and so automatically triggered the audit rules of the platform's risk control system. After Mr. Li called the customer service to report the situation, the platform manually verified and sealed his account. The behavior of the platform is only to perform the main regulatory responsibility for the public interest according to law, and there is no infringement. During the litigation process, the defendant platform submitted to the court the Description of the Software Risk Control Audit System involved in the case and relevant evidence, explaining the algorithm logic mechanism of its "preventive risk control system", and fulfilling the corresponding algorithm disclosure obligations. The Beijing Internet Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the defendant had subjective fault in adopting the algorithm risk control behavior involved in the case. It can be seen from the vocabulary and behavior of the "preventive risk control system" involved in the case that the purpose of the system is to prevent online fraud such as "killing pig dish", and to achieve regulatory obligations and public interests required by law, which is legitimate. At the same time, according to the facts identified and the logic process of the algorithm disclosed by the defendant, the algorithm setting involved in the case is an automatic reaction mechanism based on specific vocabulary and user behavior, and there is no discrimination against certain types of users. The court held that, in view of the fact that the platform involved in the case is a stranger online dating platform, it is reasonable for the defendant to strengthen the screening of online fraud crimes such as "pig killing dish" under the current social background. In addition, the defendant company also used the method of manual review to check the miscarriage of judgment within the stated period, and lifted the plaintiff's account ban and risk prompt, fulfilling the duty of care matching the algorithm risk involved in the case. To sum up, the Beijing Internet Court held that the defendant, based on the requirements of legal supervision and the purpose of protecting the public interest, set up the algorithm application of the "preventive risk control system" to conduct a neutral and undifferentiated risk screening of user behavior. Although the system was wrongly judged due to the limited technical level, the defendant fulfilled the duty of care matching the algorithm risk involved in the case, and took reasonable measures to prevent infringement. There was no subjective fault and no infringement was constituted