In a blatant attempt to suppress independent documentation of digital repression in China, Tencent has launched legal action to take down GreatFire’s FreeWeChat.com, using trademark infringement claims to mask what is clearly a politically motivated act of censorship.

 

On June 12, 2025, Tencent’s legal representative—cybersecurity firm Group-IB—submitted a takedown complaint to our hosting provider, accusing FreeWeChat of trademark and copyright infringement, cybersquatting, and unfair competition. GreatFire responded in detail, refuting each allegation on both factual and legal grounds. Despite this, the provider complied and removed our service, a troubling indication of how even flimsy legal threats can silence public-interest platforms.

 

FreeWeChat.com is one of GreatFire’s core anti-censorship initiatives. Since 2016, the project has preserved both censored and uncensored public posts from China’s dominant social platform WeChat, providing a rare window into conversations otherwise erased from public view. With over 175,000 unique visitors in the past three months, the site serves researchers, journalists, and Chinese citizens seeking transparency about the topics WeChat's owner, Tencent, suppresses.

 

Now, Tencent, through Group-IB, has demanded the takedown of FreeWeChat, falsely claiming the project infringes on its trademark. They cite the use of the word “WeChat” in our domain, even though FreeWeChat does not use WeChat's logo, claim affiliation, or distribute any modified WeChat software. The claim is thin, but the intent is clear: shut down a watchdog.

 

“This is not a trademark issue, it’s censorship wrapped in legalese,” said Martin Johnson, co-founder and lead developer of GreatFire. “We’ve dealt with state-sponsored DDoS attacks. We’ve seen FreeWeibo removed from Apple’s App Store in China. Now we’re being targeted with spurious IP claims. They’re trying to use the legal system to do what technical attacks failed to achieve: erase our work from the web.”

 

This escalation comes amid a tightening censorship regime inside China and dwindling international support for digital rights work due to foreign aid cuts. With elections looming in several Asian countries and growing domestic unrest within China, the authorities may be more anxious than ever to clamp down on narratives they cannot control.

 

We believe FreeWeChat’s growing influence, and its ability to show deleted or blocked posts on politically sensitive topics, has made it an urgent target.

lushaye.png

Weaponized Takedowns and Legal Smoke

 

Group-IB, the firm acting on Tencent’s behalf, positions itself as a global leader in cybersecurity. Its leadership includes Dmitry Volkov, named one of Business Insider’s top 7 cybersecurity influencers, and Craig Jones, former Director of Cybercrime at INTERPOL, now an independent strategic advisor on their board.

 

“With a leadership roster that includes names like Dmitry Volkov and Craig Jones, IB Group knows exactly what it’s doing, and they clearly don’t care,” said Benjamin Ismail, Campaign & Advocacy Director at GreatFire. “This isn’t legitimate trademark enforcement, it’s an abuse of intellectual property law to achieve censorship by proxy. Group-IB knowingly submitted a legally flimsy complaint to pressure a weak hosting provider into compliance, serving Tencent’s political agenda while hiding behind the language of rights protection.”

groupib.png

The takedown request cites four areas of U.S. law:

 

  • Trademark infringement (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.)
     
  • Copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
     
  • Cybersquatting (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
     
  • Unfair competition (U.S. common law)

 

Each claim lacks merit:

 

  • Trademark: FreeWeChat uses the word “WeChat” descriptively and nominatively, in line with fair use protections under U.S. and EU law. The site features no Tencent logos, no stylized branding, and clearly disclaims affiliation. No reasonable user could believe it’s an official Tencent site.
     
  • Copyright: The archived content is user-generated and was originally public on WeChat. The archiving and commentary serve public interest, are non-commercial, and meet multiple fair use criteria.
     
  • Cybersquatting: There is no bad faith, no intent to profit from Tencent’s brand, and no attempt to confuse users. The domain reflects the platform’s function—providing access to censored WeChat content.
     
  • Unfair competition: FreeWeChat does not compete with Tencent. It does not offer social messaging tools and is explicitly framed as an independent archive.

 

The complaint also suffers from procedural defects, including lack of specificity, insufficient legal analysis, and failure to demonstrate Group-IB’s legal standing to act on Tencent’s behalf.

 

We Will Not Comply

 

GreatFire will not voluntarily take down FreeWeChat.com.

 

We are actively seeking alternative hosting arrangements and will continue to keep the site online, regardless of Tencent’s tactics. We’re also putting out a call for support:

 

  • Legal assistance (especially trademark and IP defense in international contexts)
     
  • Technical support (mirroring, decentralized hosting)
     
  • Visibility and solidarity (media, advocacy, and digital rights allies)

 

This isn’t our first battle, nor will it be our last. Over the years, our projects have documented thousands of censored articles, circumvented China's Great Firewall, and helped millions access blocked content via tools like FreeBrowser and AppMaker.

 

With the support of our users and allies, we will continue to shine a light on censorship, no matter how hard its corporate and state sponsors try to shut it off.

 

About FreeWeChat

 

FreeWeChat is one of several platforms developed by GreatFire — including FreeWeibo, FreeZhihu, and others — designed to challenge censorship and expand access to information in China. The site archives and republishes public posts from WeChat Official Accounts, particularly those removed due to political sensitivity. It enables searchable access to censored material, providing a historical record of state content suppression.