China initiated its carbon emissions trading system through pilot programs in “two provinces and five cities”, gradually evolving into a carbon market model that integrates mandatory and voluntary mechanisms. It has undergone critical developmental stages, including sectoral expansion and the refinement of legal frameworks. The Chinese carbon market has now become the world’s largest. Nevertheless, operational challenges, including insufficient information transmission security and low efficiency, persist. Metaverse technologies, due to their distinctive advantages in ensuring data authenticity and enhancing information transmission efficiency, present a promising avenue for strengthening the information transmission capacity of the carbon market. The informational benefits of metaverse technologies can significantly improve the operational efficiency of the carbon market, primarily manifested in the precise allocation of carbon emission allowances, publicly verifiable access to trading eligibility, and scalable expansion of market coverage across sectors and participants. However, while the metaverse technologies reshape the operational architecture of the carbon market, they introduce novel legal risks, including unauthorized market entry, regulatory gaps, and disorderly competition. These risks not only erode the information transmission advantages enabled by technological innovation but also impede China’s “dual-carbon” policy objectives. To address these challenges, it is imperative to establish a law-centered, enabling risk-mitigation framework. Such a framework must explicitly define carbon market entry criteria, ensure timely and effective administrative oversight, and incorporate antitrust regulation tailored to the metaverse domain. By systematically constructing this risk-mitigation framework, the aforementioned legal risks can be proactively mitigated. Consequently, the institutional efficiency gains derived from metaverse-enabled innovation in the carbon market can be consolidated; the market-based instruments for achieving “dual-carbon” goals can be fully leveraged; and the modernization of the carbon market’s internal governance structure and governance capacity can be advanced.