China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

SPC Releases Typical Antitrust Cases

Tue, 19 Nov 2024
Categories: China Legal Trends

On September 11, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released eight typical cases concerning antitrust and unfair competition.

The first four cases involve antitrust disputes, addressing issues such as horizontal monopoly agreements on fixing commodity prices and joint boycotts, as well as the abuse of dominant market position through practices such as product bundling. The last four cases deal with unfair competition, focusing on counterfeiting and confusion, false advertising, and the determination of infringement of technical secrets, covering sectors including platform data, traditional consumer goods, and new energy vehicles.

For instance, Case No. 6, the “Qing Dou” (“轻抖”) unfair competition case, involved organizing fake engagement and generating artificial traffic through deceptive promotional activities. The defendant, a Hangzhou-based technology company, designed, developed, and operated the “Qing Dou” product targeting Douyin (TikTok’s Chinese counterpart). Users seeking to increase their followers and viewership on Douyin could post the paid “tasks” on the “Qing Dou” platform, attracting other users to follow or watch videos on Douyin in exchange for rewards.

The court found that such conduct constituted unfair competition under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law by using a trading platform to facilitate and guide task posting, with "task takers" masquerading as ordinary users to artificially inflate views and followers. This conduct disrupted the platform’s traffic distribution mechanism. The court ordered the defendant to cease infringement, remedy the effects, and pay CHY 4 million in damages.

 

 

Photo by Jéan Béller on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

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)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.