In order to guarantee the correct implementation of the civil public interest litigation system for personal information protection, the scope of such litigation cases should be studied through various means such as normative interpretation, empirical investigation and theoretical analysis, and by using a combination of specific research methods such as the value analysis method and the empirical research method. The study concluded that although Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law has initially defined the scope of such lawsuits in terms of the act to be sued, the eligible defendants, the object of relief and the consequences of damage, the scope of civil public interest litigation for personal information protection still presents many problems from the perspective of regulation, practice and theory, such as the requirement of the illegality of the act to be sued is too harsh, the understanding of the scope of the eligible defendants is not consistent with the type of lawsuits stipulated in the legislation, the simple equation of "numerous" personal interests with social public interests, and the "risk" of infringing "numerous" personal rights and interests has not been included in the scope of relief. In this context, to scientifically define the scope of such litigation cases, it is necessary to follow the standards of legality, necessity, and policy conformity. First, only when the illegal behavior of personal information processors substantially infringes on the social public interest does it belong to the scope of this type of litigation. Second, only when the harmed interests cannot be remedied through private litigation mechanisms such as joint litigation and representative litigation is it necessary to include them in the scope of this type of litigation. Third, the guiding role of policies should be fully utilized, and the value dimension of policy orientation should be taken into account. A positive and prudent attitude should be adopted towards policy guidance on social public interests to avoid blindly expanding or improperly reducing the scope of cases. Specifically,First, the scope of the behavior being sued should be expanded to include "violations of national regulations," that is, as long as the behavior being sued violates national regulations, it belongs to the scope of this type of litigation. Second, the litigation type stipulated in Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law belongs to civil public interest litigation, and administrative agencies cannot be eligible defendants for this type of litigation, so the lawsuit in which the administrative organ is the defendant should be excluded from the scope of this type of lawsuit. Third, it should not be included in the scope of this type of litigation simply because the number of affected individuals is "numerous", and whether it infringes on "social public interests" should be regarded as the substantive standard for determining the relief scope of this type of litigation. Fourth, to proactively avoid the occurrence of "actual harm", a preventive civil public interest litigation system for personal information protection should be established. And the "risks" that pose a real threat to the public interest, are urgent and serious, and may cause irreparable damage if not stopped in time, should be included in the scope of the remedy of this type of litigation.