Social network icon Facebook. Photo: AFP/VNA This is the first antitrust investigation that European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has launched against the world’s number one social media provider and the latest she has launched into an American “tech giant”. Ms. Vestager had previously forced Alphabet – Google’s parent company to pay a fine of 8 billion euros (about 9.7 billion USD) and is conducting a similar investigation to Amazon and Apple. During the Facebook investigation, Ms. Vestager said she would review Facebook’s huge data warehouse collected from 7 million companies that have participated in advertising on this social network. The European Commission (EC) and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) are investigating the possibility of Facebook exploiting its dominant position in the social network or digital advertising by collecting collects and uses data, and examines Facebook’s “distortion” of the advertising market through service classification. Ms. Vestager stressed that in today’s digital economy, data should not be used in ways that undermine competition. This tech giant may have to change its business model with large fines. Reacting to the EU and UK’s decision, Facebook said it will fully cooperate with the authorities of both sides to demonstrate that Facebook’s integrated “Marketplace” and dating platform provides all people with more choices and all operate in a highly competitive environment. In the role of “gatekeeper”, Facebook as well as other social networking platforms have collected a large amount of personal private information of users based on privacy terms to develop an integrated platform. Marketplace aims to increase competitive advantage over competitors. In the past, the UK has rarely conducted independent antitrust investigations into US tech giants. Since withdrawing from the EU, the UK’s antitrust division has become an independent global regulator. Andrea Coscelli, CEO of the CMA, has pledged to tackle companies like Google and Facebook with a series of antitrust lawsuits, and said he is open to working alongside colleagues in Brussels.

According to this leader, he never intended to experiment with opening 3rd-party app stores for its devices, because that would push users closer to the risk of malware exposure. Tim Cook appeared in court on May 21. Photo: Yahoo Finance. The view of Apple CEO received approval from Professor Justin Cappos, working at Tandon School of Engineering , belonging to New York University . “Clearly it is not possible for users to arbitrarily install software from their own application store,” Professor Justin Cappos stated on the website. Yahoo Finance . “Even if it’s a familiar app, there’s still the potential for increased malware and phishing on the iPhone.” Of course, Apple’s blocking of 3rd party app stores on iPhones is not simply about protecting consumers. The company also collects a 30% fee on transactions made through the App Store. In other words, while Apple is right when it comes to consumer protection, the dominance of the App Store still gets it in trouble with antitrust regulation. Tim Cook’s stance In an antitrust lawsuit being considered by the court, Epic claims Apple abused the position of the App Store, forcing developers to use a payment system it managed and paying a 30% fee. From summer 2020, Epic kicks things off with a Fortnite update, adding the option to pay for in-game currency through its own channel at a cheaper price than the App Store. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the app store and locking down Epic’s developer account. The game company quickly filed a lawsuit against Apple for monopoly behavior, demanding a reduction in transaction fees through the App Store or allowing 3rd party app stores to operate on the iPhone. CEO Epic appeared in court on May 20. Photo: Yahoo Finance. The trial took place in May with many fierce arguments, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is expected to announce the ruling next week. Here, Epic argues that if a 3rd-party app store appeared on the iPhone, developers could reduce the price of the app because it wouldn’t cost Apple 30% of the fee. Present in court, Tim Cook defended its stance on not allowing external app stores to appear on the iPhone. By comparing the amount of malware on iOS with platforms that allow the installation of 3rd party applications – Cook asserts that the iPhone accounts for only 1-2% of malware infections, while this rate on Android, Windows up to 30-40%. “If you look at the malware on iOS compared to Android and Windows, it’s really insignificant.” The numbers are on Apple’s side Cook’s view is reinforced by Report on smart device threats in 2020 published by Nokia. Accordingly, 26.64% of malware infections come from Android devices. This number is down from 47.15% in 2019. Nokia believes that security on Android has improved compared to before, in addition, hackers are gradually shifting attacks to IoT devices. Meanwhile, 38.92% of all malware infections originate from Windows PCs. The corresponding rate on Apple’s iPhone is only 1.72%. The rest belongs to other IoT devices. The rate of malware infection on iPhone is much lower than on other platforms. Photo: Yahoo Finance. Why the difference between the 3 operating systems? Professor Cappos says there are several factors at play, including iOS being updated more frequently than Android and Windows. Operating system updates will patch bugs that hackers can exploit with malware, making devices harder to jailbreak. In addition, Android and Windows are two of the most used platforms in the world, which makes them attractive targets for cybercriminals. Both the App Store and Play Store have automated malware detection processes, but Google has trouble allowing users to access 3rd-party app stores. Most security experts recommend not downloading it. download applications from these places due to the risk of malicious code insertion. Meanwhile, Windows allows users to install apps through the Windows Store or download them from anywhere on the web. Can’t “Security Flag” protect Apple? Apple does not disclose revenue from the App Store, instead, it bundles it with Services. This business, which includes Apple TV+, Apple Music+, and iCloud, will bring in $53.7 billion in 2020, or 20 percent of Apple’s $274 billion in total revenue. That proves the App Store is generating a lot of money for the company. With huge profits and strict controls on the app store, Apple may face accusations of unfair competition. According to Professor Shubha Ghosh of Syracuse University of Law , Apple needs to demonstrate that this business is up to the level of security it offers. Sometimes in the eyes of Judge Gonzalez Rogers, the 30% commission per transaction and the security of the platform don’t go together. Even security may not be the judge’s concern. “Antitrust courts don’t care so much about safety – they care about competition,” says Professor Sam Weinstein of Cardozo Law School explain. Why does Apple want to repair the iPhone itself? Apple wants to repair iPhones themselves instead of empowering 3rd parties or users.

The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Karl Racine’s office, accuses Amazon of controlling nearly 70% of e-commerce sales, leading to high consumer prices. Holding nearly 70% of commercial sales, Amazon is sued against antitrust in the US The complaint was received by the District of Columbia Attorney’s Office, which said: “This online retail platform benefits and is protected by Amazon’s anti-competitive business practices. That leaves consumers vulnerable. do not have access to the best products at the lowest cost”. In addition, Amazon also caused prices across the entire online retail market to increase virtual prices for products sold on Amazon.com as well as on competitors’ online retail sales platforms. Also in the lawsuit, the e-commerce group used methods to prevent third-party sellers on its platform from offering products at lower prices than competitors. Amazon also responded to AFP that sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in Amazon’s stores, and this response contradicts comments made by the Justice Department. This e-commerce group also prides itself on offering the lowest prices with the best selection unlike any other online platform, so Amazon reserves the right not to attach deals to products that don’t have it. competitive price for customers. This lawsuit has Amazon possibly forced to charge higher prices on its e-commerce platform. The lawsuit is intended to block Amazon from anticompetitive practices as well as claims for damages and other penalties. According to eMarketer, Amazon’s e-commerce market share in the US in 2020 is 39.8% and will increase in 2021 to 44.1%, equivalent to the amount of 367.19 billion USD. According to statistics, Amazon’s profit in the first 3 months of 2021 reached 8.1 billion USD, 3 times higher than the same period in 2020. In 2020, the US Federal and State Antitrust Enforcement Agency filed lawsuits against Facebook and Google for allegedly dominating illegal markets.

At the center of this long-running lawsuit is Fortnite, a popular video game produced by Epic that was removed from Apple’s App Store last summer for violating Apple’s rules on technical billing. due to have arbitrarily established a payment system of their own. Apple takes 30% of the value of in-app purchases on iOS devices and does not allow the use of alternative payment systems. Fortnite’s removal from the App Store prompted Epic to file a lawsuit against Apple. Squeeze the developer Epic accuses Apple of having monopolistic control over the “ecosystem” of the iOS operating system, with app makers forced to abide by its strict restrictions if they want access to hundreds of thousands of users. million iPhone and iPad users, Apple also countered that there are several other places where users can buy apps and their commissions help the company make its devices better and more secure. The CEO has his first court appearance since taking power at Apple. Photo: Getty. Several executives from both sides also testified, including Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering, and Phil Schiller, Apple’s former chief marketing officer, now serving as Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. new role as Apple Fellow. Both were subpoenaed by the court earlier this week. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is the first witness in the nearly three-week trial and is expected to end on Monday. Tim Cook and Apple are facing many dangers, not only this cult lawsuit. Cook’s testimony on Friday is likely to spark a battle against the growing antitrust pressure it is facing. Other “Frenemy” (meaning both friends and enemies) like Spotify and Match Group, the owner of Tinder, have all accused Apple of anti-competitive behavior. Even legal authorities in some countries including the US and UK have launched investigations into Apple’s regulations. Despite numerous defenses before Congress and numerous public appearances and interviews, Mr Cook appears to be preparing for his day in court. According to a report from Wall Street Journal , he spent many hours mock interrogation with former prosecutors to simulate what he might face during the trial. “The scary thing for Epic is that Tim Cook is such a compelling witness,” said Herbert Hovenkap, professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s doing what he’s been paid to do, which is bringing Apple’s lawsuit to the public.” According to the list of witnesses presented to the court, Mr. Cook will speak about “Corporate Values; Apple’s business operations and the development and launch of the App Store; the competition that Apple faces.” An Apple representative said Mr. Cook is likely to share more from his personal perspective on security and privacy issues – issues he has often criticized companies in the past – and the importance of them to Apple’s product philosophy. Roses come with quality Mr. Cook is expected to synthesize and strengthen the arguments that other Apple lawyers, experts and executives have made during the trial – that the iPhone’s App Store is not a proprietary trademark. The company argues that the 30% commission it receives through in-app purchases is not an illegal gain, but rather to make Apple devices better, more secure like their strict management of applications on Apple devices. In his testimony, Schiller highlighted the amount of money Apple has spent on research and development — an estimated $100 billion over the past 15 years — to make product improvements that developers are benefiting from. it. He also sought to counter Epic’s efforts to accuse Apple of being a monopolist. The lawsuit between Apple and Epic will determine the future of the relationship between app developers and Apple. Photo: Cnet. Epic Games company says Apple is forcing developers to play by its draconian rules such as only using the App Store and means of paying for in-app purchases if it wants to gain access to a market of more than a billion dollars. iPhone and iPad users. (Michael Schmid, Apple’s head of game business development for the App Store, revealed during the trial that Apple made more than $100 million in commissions from Fortnite.) Schiller also listed a range of Apple competitors: Google, Samsung, Motorola, Huawei and even game consoles like Sony’s PlayStation, Microsoft’s Xbox and Nintendo’s Switch. Apple claims that many of these companies also take 30% commissions and have similar restrictions on outside apps. “There are still a lot of other competitors in the distribution of applications, not just Apple,” he added. Federighi, the company’s chief software officer, further emphasized the importance of Apple’s security measures for the iOS operating system on its mobile devices. He even heavily criticized the company’s MacOS computer operating system during the trial. Unlike iPhones, Macbook laptops allow the use and download of applications from outside, a process known as “side-loading”. Epic has repeatedly pointed out and called on Apple to emulate this approach with its mobile devices. However, Apple’s lawyers and executives argue that the iPhone needs to be more secure because the risk of the device being exposed to security holes and exploitation is great, especially when smartphones are used. often contain more sensitive personal data of users than other devices such as computers, laptops… “If you take Mac security techniques and apply them to the iOS ecosystem, with so many devices and value for it, things are going to be a lot worse than they already are. on Mac,” said Mr. Federighi. “We now have a bunch of malware on Mac, which is much worse than iOS. It’s not acceptable!”. Florian Ederer, an economics professor at the Yale School of Management, thinks Cook will stick to his earlier arguments. “It is very difficult to get any new information or arguments from this CEO’s testimony that have not yet been brought to the attention of the judge,” he said. “Basically, having Cook in court is Apple’s best move to show the judge that they are taking this matter completely seriously. If there is any other purpose, perhaps it is the respect of Cook in particular and Apple in general for this lengthy litigation process,” Ederer added.

A poem by a poet of the Tang Dynasty, about the phenomenon of burning books in the Qin Dynasty. “What CEO Wang posted is an anti-government poem. It shows that he is under a lot of pressure because of the investigations,” said Hao Hong, an analyst at Bocom International in Hong Kong. CEO Wang deleted the post on May 9 and denied the above rumor. He claimed to only use the verse to refer to the company’s competitors. A spokesperson for Meituan made a similar comment. Mr. Wang Xing, CEO of Meituan. Photo: China Daily. In October 2020, billionaire Jack Ma publicly criticized the Chinese banking system. As a result, Jack Ma’s startup Ant Group was forced to stop its $35 billion listing, Alibaba was investigated and fined $2.8 billion for violating antitrust laws. “Many people think that the poem posted by Wang Xing is a criticism similar to what Jack Ma said. This is not the time for Chinese businessmen to raise their voices.” Bloomberg quoted Kerry Goh, Investment Director of Kamet Capital Partners as saying. In recent years, the Chinese government has tightened supervision of technology companies. The Hang Seng Technology Index is down a record 30% from its peak in February. Meituan is also the subject of investigation by Chinese authorities for monopolistic behavior. Meituan is accused of forcing merchants to sign exclusive business contracts on its platform. On May 10, the Shanghai Consumer Council criticized Meituan for infringing on the rights of consumers.

Facebook may be fined $ 1.8 million in Israel for “acquiring” 2 companies without permission According to Reuters, Facebook is facing a fine of up to $ 1.8 million for its act of acquiring two Israeli companies, RedKix Inc in 2018 and Service Friend Ltd in 2019 but without approval and violating the law. clause in the Economic Competition Law of Israel. Authorities in the country argue that Facebook has a market share in Israel in excess of 50% and that the group must report transactions and obtain consent before any merger in the country. . The authorities also said that Facebook and Istagram are two exclusive social networks in Israel. Facebook will face a hearing soon and the company will have 60 days to appeal the charges before serving the fine. Talking about this, Facebook has denied allegations of antitrust behavior and said that Facebook is still cooperating with the investigations of the authorities. In addition, Facebook believes that there is no reporting obligation in relation to these transactions and hopes that the competent authorities will come to the right conclusions. Last year, Facebook was also fined by the US federal court up to $5 billion related to data privacy violations and forced Facebook to strengthen privacy protections, provide quarterly report on the implementation of the agreement and the establishment of an independent monitoring board. In Canada, Facebook was also fined $6.5 million by the Competition Bureau for sharing user information with other companies.

Illustration. (Source: AFP/VNA) Italy’s antitrust agency said on May 13 that it had fined Google more than 100 million euros ($120 million) for abusing its market position by removing an app. smartphone of the opponent. In a statement, Italy’s antitrust agency said it had found Google – whose Android operating system and the Google Play app store dominates the Italian market – blocking an Enel X application for users. tram . The agency requires Google to include the Enel X application in Android Auto – a smart connection system that makes it easier and safer for car occupants to use phone features. The statement stated that a fine of 102,084,433.91 euros was imposed due to Google violates article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU) with respect to monopoly control and matters related to restriction of competition. Italy discovered that Google had not allowed Enel X Italia to develop a version of the JuicePass app compatible with Android Auto. The JuicePass app provides services related to vehicle charging, such as finding the nearest charging station and keeping a spot at that charging station. According to the Italian antitrust agency , by not integrating the Enel X Italia app into Android Auto, Google unfairly restricted users’ access to the Enel X Italia app when they were driving and charging the vehicle. The agency stated that Google’s above action has continued for more than two years and if it continues, this could deprive the Enel X Italia of the opportunity to build a large number of users amid rising electric car sales strong. As a result, the Italian antitrust authority asked Google to include Enel X Italia and other application developers’ application programming tools in Android Auto, and the agency would monitor Google’s compliance through an independent expert with whom Google is obligated to cooperate.

Johannes Caspar, the head of the Hamburg municipal privacy agency, issued a three-month emergency ban. Accordingly, Facebook is prohibited from further data collection. He also asked the European Union data panel to take action and make a ruling in the bloc. WhatsApp’s new provision of data collection is invalid because they are not transparent, inconsistent, and too broad. In a statement on May 11, Mr. Caspar confirmed that the ban aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of millions of WhatsApp users in Germany must agree to Facebook’s conditions. The German ban hits the heart of Facebook’s business model and advertising strategy. Previously, the country’s antitrust office also criticized the company for its habit of collecting data about users doing online and associated with Facebook profiles. The huge amount of information allows for targeted advertising and brings great revenue to social networks. However, WhatsApp called Mr Caspar’s statements “false” and said the ban could not prevent the new term from being deployed. In the announcement, WhatsApp said that the German authorities’ actions were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the new term. Facebook faces a wave of protests around the globe because of WhatsApp’s new terms, requiring users to agree by May 15. Mr. Caspar is concerned that Facebook could wrongly handle the data and it is important to prevent data misuse, affecting the September election. Du Lam (According to Bloomberg)

According to the New York Times billionaire Jack Ma – China’s most famous businessman – is away from the limelight. Close people revealed that he spent his time painting and practicing tai chi. The Chinese government is bringing a series of technology corporations into sight. The enormous wealth and influence of these businesses are said to be beyond the limit. Jack Ma, Alibaba e-commerce conglomerate and fintech (finance and technology) company Ant Group are Beijing’s biggest targets. European and American authorities have been trying to tighten control of the tech giants for years. However, they cannot make a big difference like what happened to the Alibaba founder in China. The Chinese government insists that businesses must commit to placing social stability above profits. Tencent founder Pony Ma (left) and billionaire Jack Ma at an event in Beijing in 2018. Photo: New York Times. The unprecedented “punishment” campaign The Beijing government is not just tightening the control of Alibaba. Ant Group CEO Simon Hu resigned in March. Just a few days later, Pinduoduo founder Colin Huang stepped down as chairman. Also in March, at a meeting, Tencent founder Pony Ma proposed stricter rules for Internet businesses, including Tencent. He also has a “voluntary meeting” with the country’s antitrust agencies. Last week, China’s antitrust agency summoned top 34 Internet companies to discuss new rules of fair competition. The discussion revolves around changes in business. Companies are committed to taking it seriously. “The new rules will require Internet platforms to look back on how they innovate in the future. And as a result there will be less innovation,” said Gordon Orr, a board member of Meituan, company. Chinese food delivery, comment. However, New York Times The Beijing government will not be too heavy on Alibaba and other Chinese Internet corporations. Even as tightening oversight, Beijing still praised the group’s contributions to the economy. Pinduoduo founder Colin Huang stepped down from his chair as the company’s chairman. Photo: New York Times. Chinese President Xi Jinping wants the economy to be driven by innovation from Chinese tech corporations, instead of big foreign ones. “It may be too early to declare that Jack Ma has failed”, New York Times comment. “To the success and performance of the Chinese economy, Alibaba is more important than any other business,” commented Richard McGregor of the Lowy Institute. “The Chinese authorities want to continue reaping the benefits of Jack Ma’s company, but on their terms. Beijing doesn’t nationalize Alibaba. The company is just narrowing its operations.” “Alibaba has a perfect opportunity to grow into a world-class company,” said Wang Guoping, an official in Hangzhou city (where Alibaba is located), in the 2000s. “What a world-class company needs most is a soul, a leader, a world-class businessman. I believe Jack Ma meets those standards, “he added. Change your attitude According to Porter Erisman, one of Alibaba’s first executives, in the 2000s, most employees at Alibaba were just trying to make a lot of money. Jack Ma alone had another concern. He fears that one day the company will become too big. And Alibaba could be under pressure for holding huge market power. In 2011, Jack Ma understood that his ambitions could make regulators dissatisfied. Ma quietly took over Alipay – Alibaba’s payment service. That move angered one of Alibaba’s biggest shareholders – Yahoo -. However, according to Jack Ma, that is the action needed to meet the new Chinese regulations. Alipay later became Ant Group. As Alibaba grew, Jack Ma began meeting presidents and movie stars admired by many Chinese businessmen. “That changed the views of Jack Ma about himself and the Chinese government,” said Duncan Clark, Chairman of BDA China, commented. Mr. Simon Hu, CEO of Ant Group, resigned in March. Photo: New York Times. When Jack Ma stepped down as Alibaba chairman in 2019, a Chinese state-run newspaper commented: “There is no such thing as the Jack Ma era, only Jack Ma is part of this era.” Chinese leaders need the private sector to sustain economic growth. However, they do not want this area to exert too much influence on society. In October 2020, when Ant was preparing to go public (IPO), Jack Ma criticized Chinese financial regulators at a conference in Shanghai. He describes the Chinese banking system “operates like a pawnshop.” Shortly after, Ant’s IPO was ordered to be canceled. The Chinese government wants to continue reaping the benefits of Mr. Ma’s company, but on their terms Richard McGregor, senior fellow at the Lowy Institute “In China, it is difficult to say that the emperor is not dressed,” commented Kellee S. Tsai at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, referring to the short story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Mr. Ma has also rarely appeared since then. According to the source of the New York Times , in January, he showed up for an internal chat. The staff then shared Mr. Ma’s message to reassure everyone. Recently, the Hurun Report team (based in Shanghai) estimated that for the first time after 3 years, Mr. Ma was not among the three richest people in China. First place belongs to Mr. Zhong Shanshan, a well-known billionaire behind a group of famous bottled water and pharmaceutical companies.

ByteDance, Baidu and CTrip are committed to ensuring fair competition. Photo: Reuters More than 20 leading Chinese technology companies have publicly pledged to adhere to antitrust principles, after regulators asked them to pay attention to the record penalty for the “giant” e-commerce. Alibaba. In a series of separate statements published by the China Market Regulatory Authority on April 14-15, some of the country’s biggest tech brands – including ByteDance, Baidu and CTrip – pledged will “ensure fair competition”, “do not abuse a dominant market position” and “do not conduct unfair pricing practices”. The pledges come after regulators summoned 34 technology companies on April 13 and asked them to “rectify” any unfair non-competitive practices, and pay attention to in the case of Alibaba. Companies have one month for full reform, after conducting internal audits and adjusting practices that compromise fair competition. Ride-hailing service Didi, video streaming platforms Kuaishou and Bilibili, as well as e-commerce company JD.com were among the parties that have made a public commitment since that meeting. JD.com said it will not force “choose one of the two” behavior on its retailers – where merchants are required to work on only one platform, not on a competitor platform. . This is the policy that Alibaba used to apply. In its statement, Didi pledged that unless necessary for regular business operations, the company will not illegally collect or misuse customers’ personal information. Last weekend, Chinese regulators fined Alibaba up to $ 2.78 billion after a months-long investigation found the company abused its dominant position in the market. Alibaba and JD.com, along with games and messaging app giant Tencent, have greatly benefited from the increasingly technological lifestyles in China and the absence of major U.S. competitors. But as these platforms with hundreds of millions of regular users are growing, public opinion is increasingly concerned about the problem of user data that these companies collect over the long term. According to observers, China has put domestic technology companies on the target to limit the reach of private companies to the daily financial activities of its people. That move could curb their dominance.

The controversial “choose 1 in 2” strategy in the past five years in China has finally become qualitative in imposing monopolistic business practices, and Alibaba has become the first “victim” to gender. This country’s official “stunned”.

Penalties of up to 18,288 billion yuan ($ 2.8 billion) issued by China’s State Market Supervision Department against Alibaba account for 4% of the group’s 2019 revenue.

The group of billionaire Jack Ma has continuously encountered bad luck in recent times.

Not merely a punishment, the meaning of the case went far beyond its original purpose. This is said to be a warning to the entire Internet industry in China, and the move also shows Beijing is accelerating its war of antitrust against big tech companies.

Alibaba: “Big trees catch the wind”

In fact, legal disputes over Alibaba’s monopoly conduct have long existed. Starting in November 2015, Alibaba’s “choose 1 in 2” policy under Jack Ma was accused of disrupting the e-commerce market and many platforms repeatedly called for a boycott of this behavior.

It was not until December 2020 that the State Market Administration of China conducted the first antitrust investigation and a final decision was made. Basically, Alibaba immediately expressed its attitude to cooperate with the authorities. “We recognize that today’s penalty is a warning and motivating us, it is a standard and concern for the industry’s development,” an Alibaba representative said in the Letter. customers and the public.

In the opinion of many market analysts, that penalty is inherently beneficial for Alibaba, because conservative policies in recent years have made them gradually lag in e-commerce. This also allows the Internet economic platform to re-focus on sustaining innovation, instead of relying on dominant positions to “protect” the market. More importantly, the warning for Alibaba will form a strong competitive advantage in the market in the future.

Other platforms started to be wary

In addition to warning Alibaba, the penalty serves as a deterrent to the entire Chinese internet industry. After all, the problem of monopoly is not limited to just one platform and with the current scale of operations, it is completely understandable that Alibaba is being targeted first.

Over the years, the platform economy has benefited from the rapid growth and popularity of the Internet. Based on the cumulative effect, the platforms quickly formed certain areas, especially e-commerce. Up to a certain stage, natural monopoly properties will arise and the larger the platform scale, the more obvious the advantage.

However, “if the platforms misuse this advantage, leading to the formation of unfair competition, the behavior is suspected to be illegal”, the punishment that the Administration Department oversees. China has proved it. Realizing the risk, many leading e-commerce platforms such as Taobao, Tmall, JD, 1688 … started to change policies to avoid becoming the next victim of the regulator.

The Internet antitrust campaign in China is accelerating

“This time Alibaba was fined and signaled that relevant departments had tightened antitrust oversight of the platform economy. I believe there will be other antitrust enforcement cases in the future, not just this one, “said a researcher at the Center for Intellectual Property Research, University of Political Science and Law.

In addition, strengthening antitrust and preventing capital expansion causing market disruption is also the Chinese government’s consistent attitude, which was specifically mentioned at the Central Economic Work Conference held. at the end of last year. However, from the development context over the years, the monopoly monitoring here still has a certain delay.

With the rapid development and changing of Internet economic platforms, law enforcement or administrative governance need to keep up with the times, forcing the Chinese authorities to speed up the antitrust war. This is expected to create fair competition and maintain standardized market vitality in the future.

Alibaba was fined $ 2.8 billion for alleged monopoly.

JD.com, Meituan and ByteDance lead China’s first group of Big Tech companies to commit to complying with the law after China Market Surveillance Agency (SAMR) asked them to “learn lessons” from Alibaba. Group Holding in Beijing’s latest antitrust investigation.

On April 14, 12 out of 34 tech companies released a public statement pledging to do business in compliance with the law after SAMR warned of Alibaba’s recent antitrust sanctions and conducted self-testing. next month.

Earlier, e-commerce giant Alibaba was fined a record $ 2.8 billion for forcing small businesses to sell exclusive products on the platform. Monopolistic behavior is understood as how businesses eliminate competition of competitors by forcing customers to choose “one of two”.

JD.com has made eight promises including “never taking measures to force sellers to choose either and never abusing a dominant market position or making any exclusive deals. “. The e-commerce group also said it will “never publish illegal advertisements and never sell products of substandard quality”.

Meituan’s delivery staff.

Meituan promised not to impose unreasonable measures forcing sellers to “choose one of the two” and would not abuse its market position to limit competition. In addition, the company is committed to providing full support to the Chinese regulatory authorities. “Once we find evidence of illegal conduct, we will report it to regulators in a timely manner and readily cooperate with any investigation,” Meituan said.

ByteDance, the owners of short video apps TikTok and Douyin, made 13 promises in its public statement. China’s most valuable unicorn company says it will “not illegally collect and misuse user data” and adhere to “minimum guidelines” in collecting data from users. E-commerce platform Pinduoduo said it will “proactively assume more social responsibility”, as well as comply with legal and regulatory requirements.

The rest of the companies are expected to announce their public commitment over the next two days

Beijing’s targeting of key Big Tech firms including Kuaishou, Bilibili and Didi Chuxing comes at a time when the Chinese government is resolutely using antitrust laws and other regulatory methods to halt. out-of-control expansion.

SAMR has accused major tech companies of misconduct such as forcing sellers to choose only one trading platform, abuse of market dominance, abuse of big data to unfair pricing. for certain customers, ignoring poor quality products, leaking customer data, and tax evasion.

“No one is allowed to cross the regulatory lines and not touch the legal red line,” SAMR said on Tuesday.

34 Internet service providers are on the spot, many of which are listed on US and Hong Kong exchanges. Companies were asked to “raise responsibility and give priority to the national interests”.

“Companies must absolutely avoid disordered capital expansion to ensure China’s economic and social security, you must absolutely avoid monopolies to ensure fair competition,” according to Beijing’s statement towards Internet service platforms.

SAMR says companies have one month to do a “self-check and self-repair”, after which the government will conduct follow-up and “severely punish” those companies that fail to address the misconduct.