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

Beijing & Shanghai Unveil Low-Altitude Economy Plans

Beijing and Shanghai have announced plans to develop the low-altitude economy, aiming to grow the industry to CNY 100 billion and CNY 50 billion respectively by 2027, with a focus on aerial rescue, logistics, and passenger transport.

SPC Releases Typical Antitrust Cases

In September 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) published eight typical cases on antitrust and unfair competition, highlighting issues like price-fixing, market dominance abuse, and deceptive practices.

China Launches Gradual Retirement Reform

China's National People's Congress has approved a gradual increase in the statutory retirement age for men and women, set to begin on January 1, 2025, marking the first adjustment in over 70 years.

China Revises National Defense Education Law

In September 2024, the newly revised “National Defense Education Law of the People’s Republic of China” was passed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee and came into effect on 21 September.

SPC Releases Typical Cases to Support Hong Kong Arbitration

In September 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released six typical cases to demonstrate its support for Hong Kong arbitration, emphasizing judicial cooperation and the recognition of arbitral awards to foster international arbitration development.

SPC Sets Standards for Punitive Damages in Food Safety

In August 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a judicial interpretation that addresses punitive damages in food safety cases, featuring typical cases to establish uniform standards and enhance consumer protection.