China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Issues 13 Antitrust Fines Against Multiple Internet Giants

Sat, 12 Feb 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 5 Jan. 2022, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) issued 13 administrative penalties.

According to the penalties, the SAMR unveiled 13 cases of unreported concentration of business operations and imposed a fine of CNY 500,000 on several domestic internet giants involved per case.

Although the fine was relatively small, it was de facto the highest amount that could be imposed by the regulatory authority under this circumstance. It is fair to say that the regulatory authority has considered these behaviors to be serious.

Among them, there are nine penalties involving Tencent Holdings Ltd, and one penalty involving Bilibili Inc, Ali Venture Capital Co. Ltd as well as Alibaba (China) Network Technology Co. Ltd each.

All the companies involved are influential internet giants in China.

It is worth noting that, on 10 April 2021, Alibaba was fined CNY 18,228 billion (approx. USD 2,858 billion) for abusing its dominant position in the domestic online retail platform service market. This has been the highest penalty amount in China’s anti-monopoly enforcement.

On 10 Nov. 2020, the SAMR also issued the “Antitrust Guidelines for Platform Economy (Draft for Public Comment)” (关于平台经济领域的反垄断指南(征求意见稿)), aiming to prevent and stop monopolistic behaviors in the country’s internet platform sector.

 

 

Cover Photo by JuniperPhoton on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)