China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Alibaba Fined CNY 18.2 Billion for Anti-Monopoly Violations

Mon, 10 May 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 10 Apr. 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), pursuant to the PRC Anti-monopoly Law, imposed an administrative penalty on Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (hereinafter the “Alibaba Group”) for its abuse of market dominance in China’s services market involving online retail platforms, ordering Alibaba Group to stop its illegal activities and pay a fine of CNY 18.228 billion(USD 2.8 billion), which was equal to 4% of its domestic revenues in 2019 (CNY 455.712 billion).

Alibaba Group enjoys market dominance in the market of online retail platform service providers in China. Since 2015, Alibaba Group has been abusing its market dominance, requiring the business operators to accept its policy, “choose one from two”. According to this policy, business operators on Alibaba’s platform are prohibited from opening stores or participating in promotional activities on other competitive platforms. Moreover, a variety of reward and punishment measures are taken to ensure the implementation of such policy.

Such activities of Alibaba Group eliminates and restricts competition in the market of online retail platform service providers in China, impedes the free flow of goods, services and resources, affects the innovation and development of platform economy, infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of business operators on the platform, and harms the interests of consumers as well. It thus constitutes an abuse of market dominance by “requiring the other party to the transaction to trade exclusively with it without justifiable reasons” as specified in subparagraph 1(4) of Article 17 of the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law.

While making the decision on administrative penalty in accordance with the PRC Administrative Penalty Law, the SAMR has issued the Administrative Guidelines to Alibaba Group, requiring it to adopt comprehensive ratification measures, such as regulating its own competitive behaviors, assuming the responsibilities as a platform service provider, strengthening the internal control and compliance management, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of business operators and consumers on the platforms, etc., and to submit self-inspection and compliance reports to the SAMR for three consecutive years.

 

 

Cover Photo by viarami (https://pixabay.com/users/viarami-13458823/) on Pixabay

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

China Introduces New Drunk Driving Convictions Standards Effective 2023

In December 2023, China announced updated standards for drunk driving convictions, stating that individuals who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 80mg/100ml or higher on a breath test may be held criminally liable, according to the recent joint announcement by the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of Justice.

SPC's Revised Rules Extend Reach of International Commercial Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People’s Court's newly amended provisions extended the reach of its International Commercial Courts (CICC). To establish a valid choice of court agreement, three requirements must be met - the international nature, the agreement in writing, and the amount in controversy - while the 'actual connection' is no longer required.

SPC Releases Typical Cases of Punitive Damages for Food Safety

In November 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released typical cases of punitive damages for food safety, emphasizing consumer rights protection and highlighting instances of tenfold compensation awarded to consumers for food safety violations.

SPC Adjusts Jurisdiction of Its IP Court

In October 2023, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued “Decisions to Amend the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Court”.