Frequent robot leasing disputes, how to determine responsibi

Currently, intelligent robots such as humanoid robots are accelerating their entry into people's lives, and with the continuous expansion of application scenarios, the business model of "rental robots" is also emerging.

 

On July 4, 2026, the Chinese Association of Humanoid Robots released an initiative to regulate and guide the development of emotional companionship humanoid robots, proposing to strengthen quality management, ensure product safety, and effectively prevent the risk of personal injury to users. On the same day, the Robotics Branch of the China Machinery Industry Federation released an initiative to jointly practice the goodness of science and technology and promote the healthy development of the robotics industry.

 

On June 8, 2026, the General Office of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the General Office of the State owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council issued a notice on the joint implementation of the 2026 Special Action for Realistic Training of Humanoid Robots and Embodied Intelligence, proposing to encourage the exploration of the "Humanoid Robos-as-a-Service" model, reduce user investment barriers through commercial innovation methods such as utility payment and operational leasing, and accelerate market-oriented promotion.

 

According to data from Qichacha, as of April 2, 2026, there are 153000 robot leasing related enterprises in China. This type of enterprise will have a cumulative registration of 38200 in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 55.7%. The robot rental market is becoming increasingly active, and the issues of safety and division of rights and responsibilities are becoming more prominent. During the leasing process, accidents such as accidental injury to pedestrians and damage to site facilities caused by robots due to their own malfunctions, site environment, and other reasons often occur, which has sparked widespread discussions. The issue of responsibility allocation has gradually become a focus of industry attention.

 

Recently, a reporter from the Legal Daily conducted an interview on the division of responsibilities related to the rental process of humanoid robots.

 

The single cause is solely the responsibility of the lessee

 

On a morning in March 2026, at a shopping mall in Linyi City, Shandong Province, four humanoid robots were performing on a stage. The novel performance attracted many customers to stop and watch. Despite multiple reminders from on-site staff not to approach and the establishment of a safety cordon, curious children still climbed over the safety cordon and touched the robot up close. An accident occurred at this moment - one of the robots was performing a coherent martial arts action when its mechanical leg accidentally hit a boy crossing the line, causing the boy to be injured.

 

Liu Xiaocheng, a robot rental worker in Shandong, still has lingering fears when recalling this accident. After receiving instructions, the robot was unable to interrupt its performance in a timely manner. After the incident, we immediately comforted the injured child and accompanied them for medical examination, "Liu Xiaocheng told reporters. In the end, the company fully bore the child's medical and nutritional expenses.

 

This type of accident is not an isolated case. Tang Yixiang, the lessee of Beijing White Dolphin Technology Co., Ltd., has also been involved in a robot performance accident. In May 2026, he went to a school in Wuhan, Hubei Province with two humanoid robots to carry out a performance event. During the preparation stage of the event, due to a misoperation by the operator, the robots entered damping mode and lost balance and fell at the moment of getting up, causing damage to the body camera. Tang Yixiang told reporters that the accident was caused by a staff error, and the equipment maintenance costs were ultimately borne by the company itself.

 

According to Liu Xiaocheng, in the actual cooperation process, his company only clarified basic terms such as payment method and performance duration in the contract, and rarely detailed the attribution of accident rights and responsibilities.

 

According to his understanding, the current industry generally recognizes that robots are operated by humans. Although such accidents are rare, if an accident occurs, the responsibility is likely to belong to the operator. Once an accident occurs, in order to avoid disputes and maintain cooperative relationships, most leasing companies choose to take full responsibility proactively.

 

Difficult to determine responsibility due to complex causes

 

The reporter found in the interview that the responsibility for accidents caused solely by operational errors is relatively clear, but once the accident involves factors such as site environment, equipment status, and human operation, it will fall into a complex situation where it is difficult to determine responsibility.

 

Mr. Li, a robot rental practitioner from Zhejiang Province, told reporters about his experience of disputes caused by unclear rights and responsibilities. In December 2025, the company provided humanoid robot performance services for the opening event of a restaurant in Hangzhou. The red carpet laid on site caused the robot's center of gravity to shift and tilt, damaging the beverage machine outside the store. The organizer attributed the cause of the accident to Mr. Li's improper operation.

 

Actually, we have informed the organizers in advance that we need to ensure the smoothness of the venue, "Mr. Li said. Subsequently, as the contract did not specify the ownership of rights and responsibilities for such scenarios, both parties had to mediate privately and each bear the losses.

 

The reporter learned that in order to avoid accidents and disputes and reduce business risks, some lessees choose to prioritize risk control measures. Several practitioners have stated that they will check the key conditions such as the ground material, personnel flow, and spatial layout of the activity venue in advance before accepting orders. They will adhere to the principle of safety priority throughout the live performance, arrange dedicated personnel to control the equipment throughout the entire process, and be ready to activate emergency braking at any time.

 

Regarding this, Professor Zhang Li from the School of Civil and Commercial Law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law stated that if the accident is mainly caused by operational errors, such as improper control by the operators dispatched by the lessor, the lessor usually bears the main responsibility because at this time, the lessor is not just "renting a machine", but providing "equipment+operation+technical services". If the staff cause harm to others while performing their work tasks, the employer should bear tort liability in accordance with Article 1191 of the Civil Code. After assuming liability for infringement, the employer may seek compensation from the staff who intentionally or grossly negligent.

 

If the accident is mainly caused by external factors such as uneven or too smooth ground, or if the organizer has not set up fences, then the organizer usually bears the main responsibility. As a mass activity organizer and public place manager, if the organizer fails to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, it will bear tort liability; if the accident is mainly caused by product design or manufacturing defects, or if the manufacturer does not fully indicate the use restrictions, the manufacturer should bear corresponding responsibility, "Zhang Li said.

 

Some accidents may be caused by multiple reasons. For example, the stability of the robot itself is insufficient, coupled with the lessee's failure to conduct on-site testing, and the organizer's inadequate isolation of the audience. "Xu Ying, a senior partner at Beijing Kyoto Law Firm, gave an example that in this situation, it may constitute joint infringement or separate infringement causing the same damage, and should be shared according to the degree of fault and the cause; When it is difficult to distinguish the proportion of responsibility, it is also possible to evenly share or assume joint and several liability before conducting internal recovery.

 

There is no unified standard for equipment loss assessment yet

 

In addition, the reporter learned that the definition of responsibility for the loss and damage of robots during leasing and circulation has also become a prominent issue faced by practitioners.

 

Industry insiders admit that due to the high logistics and maintenance costs of robots, the delineation of responsibilities for equipment loss can sometimes affect the profits and losses of lessees. Therefore, the results of equipment loss assessment and compensation are particularly important for them. However, there is currently no unified industry standard for determining whether minor equipment damage such as scratches and joint wear on the body belongs to normal usage wear and tear, or damage caused by improper storage or operational errors by the lessee.

 

Liu Xiaocheng, who owns more than 20 devices and has a certain business scale, has formed his own set of judgment criteria: for equipment damage caused by obvious use, the lessee shall bear the liability for compensation; For minor scratches on the body, if there are no obvious signs of human violence damage, it is considered as routine wear and tear and generally not subject to liability.

 

Liu Xiaocheng told reporters that equipment damage not only incurs direct repair costs, but also results in high hidden business losses due to the inability to accept orders and make profits from repairs. Leasing companies with a certain scale generally have sufficient profit margins to absorb daily equipment maintenance costs.

 

For small leasing companies with weak financial strength, deducting equipment deposits has become the core means of covering maintenance costs. According to a reporter's investigation, the daily rental deposit for ordinary humanoid robots is generally several thousand yuan, and the deposit for some high-end models is basically equivalent to the original value of the equipment. Due to the lack of third-party professional loss assessment agencies in the industry, most of the loss assessment rules and compensation standards are unilaterally formulated by the lessee. If the lessee determines that the robot has been artificially damaged, the deposit will be deducted, which has also led to some commercial disputes.

 

Mr. Zeng, a lessee in Hunan Province, was once deeply involved in a deposit dispute. In October 2025, a customer rented a humanoid robot in bare rental mode (i.e. only renting robots, excluding accompanying operators) and paid the rent and deposit in full. After returning the equipment, Mr. Zeng found that the robot's robotic arm had a joint jamming fault, so he deducted the corresponding deposit based on the cost of returning to the factory for repair. But the customer firmly denies any operational errors and claims that there was a lag problem with the equipment before delivery, demanding a full refund of the deposit.