China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Fines Meituan $ 530 Million for Abusing Its Dominant Market Position

Tue, 09 Nov 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 8 Oct. 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) announced an administrative penalty decision on the grounds that Meituan had abused its dominant market position within the Chinese online food delivery service market, in violation of the Anti-monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China(中华人民共和国反垄断法)(Anti-monopoly Law).

The SAMR ordered Meituan to stop its unlawful acts and fully refund the exclusive cooperation deposits of CNY 1.289 billion. In addition, it was imposed a fine of CNY 3.442 billion (approx. USD 530 million), representing 3% of its revenue generated within China in 2020.

At the same time, the SAMR issued an Administrative Guidance Letter (“the Letter”), instructing the company to rectify its commission charging mechanism and algorithm rules as well as to protect the lawful rights and interests of small and medium-sized catering businesses and delivery riders in the platform. The Letter also requires the company to submit a self-assessment and compliance report to the SAMR for three consecutive years.

According to the SAMR’s investigation, Meituan has abused its dominant market position within the Chinese online food delivery service market since 2018. The company forced its merchants into exclusive cooperation agreements by charging differential rates and slowing down their approvals to list on the app.

Meituan also required its merchants to “pick-one-from-two” among Meituan and other rival platforms by charging exclusive cooperation deposits, adopting algorithms, data, and other technical means as well as various punitive measures. 

All of the above acts constitute an abuse of a dominant market position under Article 17 of the Anti-monopoly Law, as they have forced, “without justifiable reasons”,  their trading counterparts to make transactions exclusively with themselves”. As a matter of fact, these acts have eliminated and restricted competition in the relevant market, hindered the free circulation of market resources, weakened the platform’s motivation to innovate and develop, and harmed the lawful rights and interests of merchants and consumers in the platform.

 

 

Cover Photo by Bangyu Wang  on Unsplash

 

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

China Releases Typical Cases of Private Fund Crimes

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) and Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) jointly released five typical cases of private fund crimes, aiming to establish uniform standards for handling such crimes nationwide and combatting criminal activities within the private fund sector.

SPC Releases IP Guiding Cases

In December 2023, China’s Supreme People's Court issued its 39th batch of guiding cases focused on intellectual property rights, covering various aspects such as IPR infringement disputes, patent ownership, and copyright ownership.

SPC Releases Judicial Interpretation on Contract Law

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation on the Contract section of the Civil Code, aimed at guiding courts in adjudicating disputes and ensuring nationwide consistency in application.

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.