New Anti-French Internet Articles Swing Meituan and Ele. Meituan and Ele.me Lost in Unfair Competition

Cover news reporter Zhang Yuexi

Recently, the Huai’an Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province issued a judgment on Meituan’s unfair competition. This case is the first application of Article 12 of the “People’s Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law” that came into effect on January 1, 2018. Infringement cases of unfair competition in the takeaway field. The civil judgment shows that Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. (Meituan) will compensate Shanghai Lazars Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Eleme) with a compensation of 352,000 yuan. The reporter learned that in the judgment, the court also found a number of cases where Meituan forced merchants to “choose one of two”, including forcing merchants to “exclusively cooperate” with the platform by narrowing the scope of delivery. In addition to Meituan, recently, the case of Ele.me Wenzhou forcing merchants to “choose one of two” also came to an end. The Intermediate People’s Court of Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province determined Ele.me was involved in unfair competition in this incident and ordered it to compensate Beijing Sankuai. Online Technology Co., Ltd. (Meituan Waimai) economic loss of 80,000 yuan. According to the judgment, the employees of Ele.me asked the merchants involved in the case to close their online stores on the Meituan food delivery platform, forcing them to sign an exclusive cooperation agreement with Ele.me.com. After being rejected, they log in to the merchant account and close their stores on the platform, which was improper. The subjective maliciousness of the competition is obvious, harming the interests of merchants, and seriously hindering and undermining the normal operation of the network services legally provided by the operators of Meituan Waimai and other food delivery platforms. The court ruled that the above behavior of the Wenzhou Branch of Lazas Company (Ele.?) was an act of unfair competition under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In February 2016, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council published the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Unfair Competition (Revision Draft for Review)” to solicit public opinions. Article 13 of the draft for review specifically stipulates four acts of Internet unfair competition. , Is called “Internet Special Article.” The knife of the new anti-French Internet article goes beyond the field of foreign trade. It is worth mentioning that on April 13, the State Administration for Market Regulation, together with the Central Cyberspace Administration of China and the State Administration of Taxation, held an Internet platform enterprise administrative guidance meeting. In response to the prominent problems in the field of platform economy, such as the forced implementation of “two options and one”, the “five strict preventions” and “five guarantees” are proposed, and all Internet platform companies are clearly required to conduct self-inspection and self-examination within one month, and make rectifications one by one. Beginning on the 13th, for three consecutive days, the State Administration of Market Supervision will collectively announce the “Commitment to Operate in Compliance with Laws and Regulations” of the 34 Internet platform companies participating in the conference. The first batch of Internet platform companies that disclosed the “Operation Commitment in Compliance with Laws and Regulations” to the public are Baidu, JD.com, Meituan, Qihoo 360, Weidian, Sina Weibo, ByteDance, Dingdong Maicai, Pinduoduo, Xiaohong Book, Suning Tesco, Vipshop. Under the anti-monopoly environment, platform-based economic enterprises were the first to bear the brunt. On the 13th, Meituan fell more than 8% during intraday trading, and its share price hit a new low this year. Counting the decline in the previous day, Meituan-Dianping has fallen by more than 12% in the two trading days. Industry insiders believe that the Huai’an and Wenzhou cases, from the perspective of judicial adjudication, have further consolidated the impropriety of the forced “choose one” behavior of takeaway platforms, and played a very positive role in maintaining a healthy business environment. At the same time, with the clarification of judicial attitudes and the intensification of anti-monopoly supervision, Internet platforms in an advantageous position will be more restricted, and the biggest beneficiaries will be catering merchants in a disadvantaged position.