Whether a company could dismiss an employee on the ground of “Material Change of Objective Circumstances” due to staff surplus caused by AI?

Let us review three cases concerning this issue firstly.

Company A adopted AI for map data collection and resolved to abolish its Navigation Product Department, which previously handled manual data collection. So Company A negotiated with Lau on amending his employment contract, but Lau refused. Company A unilaterally terminated Lau’s contract. The arbitral tribunal and the courts of both instance all held that the dismissal was unlawful. (See (2024) Jing 01 Min Zhong No. 11896).

Company B replaced part of Yu’s job responsibilities with AI, and negotiated cutting his monthly salary from RMB 25,000 to 15,000. Yu refused this proposal. Company B unilaterally terminated Yu’s contract. Both the labor arbitration tribunal and the court held that the dismissal was unlawful. (This case was listed as one of the Model Cases on Protection of Rights and Interests of Enterprises and Practitioners in the AI Industry released by Hangzhou Courts on April 28, 2026.)

Company C negotiated employment contract amendments with hundreds of its employees. It proposed transferring Zhu from a production line management position to an operator position with unchanged pay, but Zhu refused. Company C unilaterally terminated Zhu’s contract. Zhu initiated labor arbitration, arguing that Company C had maintained steady revenue in recent years, and the staff reduction by half after launching fully automated AI production lines did not constitute a “material change of objective circumstances”. To prove the alleged material objective change, Company C submitted evidence including records of idle production lines, client emails notifying discontinuation of relevant products, and client order correspondence from 2022 to 2024. The arbitral tribunal and courts of both instances accepted Company C’s statement and held that the dismissal was lawful. (See (2025) Yue 2071 Min Chu No. 38360).

All three cases involve redundancies arising from AI, but why the judicial rulings differ drastically?

The core point is that staff surplus solely causing by AI is not equated with a “material change of objective circumstances”. To prove a “material change of objective circumstances” requires more objective factors.

In the Beijing case, the court held that Company A’s shift to AI map data collection, driven by predictable operational factors including technological advances and market shifts, merely represented an adjustment to its business strategy and scope, which shall not be deemed as a “material change of objective circumstances”. Another noteworthy detail cited in the judgment is that, although Company A claimed to abolish the Navigation Product Department, other employees of this department remained employed, and the company never offered Lau a specific alternative position after restructuring.

Likewise, the Hangzhou court ruled that AI technology constituted a market competition driven technical upgrade, which would not automatically be deemed as a “material change of objective circumstances” that renders performance of an employment contract impossible. The court further noted that Company B’s proposed salary cut was unreasonable, leading to a final finding of unlawful dismissal.

By contrast, Company C prevailed in the Guangdong case because it substantiated a chain of objective facts: idle production lines, shrinking order volumes, mass layoffs of hundreds of line workers, as well as a concrete transfer offer to Zhu with identical compensation terms.

Based on the rationales behind the three cases, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn:

1. Where AI is the only reason for staff surplus, it shall not be deemed as a “material change of objective circumstances”.
2. If AI is the reason for staff surplus, but alongside there are some other adverse operational conditions (e.g., declining orders, operating deficits, production suspension and so on), supported by objective documentary evidence, there is a relatively higher possibility that the circumstance will be recognized as a “material change of objective circumstances”.
3. On the premise of Item 2 above, the possibility of judicial recognition rises further if the company conducts equal negotiation for contract modification with all affected employees. If salary adjustments are proposed, the reduction margin shall be kept as minimal as possible (a 20% pay cut is generally regarded as the acceptable upper limit).

From the employer’s perspective, a smarter workforce planning is more important. Companies shall plan ahead, forecast workforce demand fluctuations reasonably in line with medium and long-term corporate development strategies, and conduct overall allocation and redistribution of staff numbers and positions in a timely manner. Meanwhile, companies shall refine employee performance appraisal systems and establish workplace rules that reward dedicated high-performing staff while enabling lawful management of underperforming employees.