《民法典》和《个人信息保护法》的颁布实施虽为个人信息权益保护提供了法律依托和制度支撑，但如何在个人信息权益领域结合传统的精神损害赔偿制度以达到更好地维护公民个人信息权益的目的成为当前学界和司法实务聚焦的重点。这是因为个人信息与个人隐私、个人名誉等人格法益天然交叉，在多个方面容易出现重复混淆导致司法实务中无法有效界定个人信息囊括的范围，同时由于个人信息具备无形性，其突破了时空限制导致在个人信息权益领域适用精神损害赔偿制度出现争议，实务中也因各地法院在精神损害认定标准上的不一致出现了“同案不同判”的情形。因此有必要鉴别个人信息与隐私信息之间的关系，明确个人信息权益领域适用精神损害赔偿制度的标准。
个人信息权益领域适用精神损害赔偿责任的关键在于证实其构成要件和可行性。因为精神损害既难以证实也难以证伪，各地认定标准不统一以及《个人信息保护法》部分条款略为模糊引发了个人信息权益保护适用法律交叉重合情形的规范冲突、个人信息权益能否适用精神损害赔偿制度等法律适用问题。因此为了有效地应对以上问题，本文从隐私权和个人信息权益定义的底层逻辑着手，界定个人信息权益与隐私权等人格法益之间范围并利用传统精神损害赔偿制度源流为个人信息侵权精神损害赔偿制度明确其内涵、立法目的与功能。经分析233例案例，通过分析汇总数据发现“同案不同判”情况源于法律适用混乱及精神损害赔偿标准不统一，并且为建立全面的个人信息侵权精神损害赔偿制度提供了实践依据，进一步论证了精神损害赔偿制度的合理性及在实践中的可行性。另一方面，在特别法优于普通法的原则基础上明确侵权主体为个人信息处理者时，《个人信息保护法》具有优先适用效力；当侵权行为主体为个人信息外的一般义务主体时应适用《民法典》相关条款以体现公平原则。同时就个人信息侵权适用精神损害赔偿时是否应以“严重损害后果”为必要前提与精神损害赔偿金额能否以及如何确定法定最低金额、合理适用区间等问题统一了适用标准和范围，并在法定最低赔偿金额的基础之上辅以动态评价机制，以期为完善个人信息精神损害赔偿制度提供借鉴与参考。

The enactment and enforcement of the Civil Code and Personal Information Protection Law have offered legal and institutional support for safeguarding personal information rights and interests. However, what our law field and judicial practice focus on is how to protect the personal information rights and interests of natural persons on the basis of the traditional system of compensation for mental distress. This is because of the inherent overlap among personal information, private information, and personal reputation which lead to the duplication and confusion in various aspects, making it difficult to demarcate their boundaries in many cases of the judicial practice. Meanwhile, as a new and intangible entity, personal information can transcend spatial and temporal limitations, leading to disputes over whether the system of compensation for mental distress can be applied in the field of personal information rights and interest protection. In judicial practice, there has also been "different verdicts in similar cases" due to the different recognition standards of mental distress among different courts. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the correlation and demarcation between personal and privacy information to explicit the standard for implementing the mental distress compensation system on personal information rights and interests.
The core of applying mental distress compensation in the realm of personal information rights and interests is to verify its validity and practicality. The difficulty to prove the authenticity of mental distress, and regional disparities in its identification criteria, along with parts of ambiguous clauses in the Personal Information Protection Law on mental distress, have caused laws application problems, including normative clashes in overlapping legal applications aimed at safeguarding personal information rights and interests, whether personal information rights and interests can be applied in the compensation for mental distress, etc. Therefore, to effectively tackle the problems above, this dissertation bases on the fundamental logic of defining privacy and personal information rights to definitely demarcate the boundaries between personal information and privacy rights, and clarify the connotation, purpose and function of the rules of compensation for mental distress in personal information violations by tracing the origin of traditional mental distress compensation systems. Through the analysis of 233 case studies, it is found that the frequency of new types of personal information infringement is closely linked with the local economic development, and the application of relative laws is complicated in the juridical practice. Through analyzing and summarizing the data, this dissertation has found that the "different verdicts in similar cases" in current judicial practice result from the confusion of law application and inconsistency in the standards of compensation for mental distress, and also provided practical basis for constructing a comprehensive compensation system for mental distress in personal information infringement and further demonstrated the rationality and feasibility of the compensation system for mental distress in practice. When improving the existing mental distress compensation system for personal information infringement, the principle should be built that the observance of special laws should be prior to general laws. Based on the priority effect of the Personal Information Protection Law, it is clarified that when the subject of infringement is a general obligation subject other than personal information, relevant provisions of the Civil Code should be applied to achieve better protection effects. On the other hand, the special law should be superior to common law, when it is clear that the infringing party is a personal information processor, the Personal Information Protection Law has priority application effect. When the infringing party is a subject of general obligation, relevant provisions of the Civil Code should be applied to reflect the principle of fairness. Meanwhile, it has also unified the law application standards and scopes about the problems that whether the application of the compensation for mental distress to personal information infringement should be based on the prerequisite of "serious injurious consequences" and that whether and how to determine the statutory minimum amount and reasonable application range of mental distress compensation so as to provide reference for personal information mental distress compensation system.