It seems that the Industry and Commerce Bureau is also suffering from it. In one sentence, industry analysis reports of private companies cannot be legal evidence. The government-run (various industry associations) industry analysis reports dare not point out the words clearly. (I only talk about the growth rate of the industry, and never mention your share.) The annual report of a listed company like Meituan recognizes the industry leader and industry leader, too few. If you look at Tencent’s annual report, there is no mention of industry status and market share, only specific figures, how many billions of revenue mobile mobile games bring. .. Differential pricing, also known as big data mastering. It is restricted only in the “Anti-Monopoly Law”, and only applies to the person with the largest share of the industry. The “Price Law” only takes care of some small behaviors. The marked price and the settlement price cannot be inconsistent. The original price of continuous activities cannot be talked about, and the price increase after the event must be done. The “Price Law” also has bugs, and it does not clearly stipulate that the original price before the event, the event price, and the price increase after the event must be discussed under the same calculation method. So much so that the judge himself would take advantage of the loopholes, pointing to the front price of the coupon and saying that the merchant had already done the activity and then increased the price. But the settlement price after the event was the same as the event price, and the judge pretended not to see it. You have to appeal and express [I think] that it is reasonable for consumers to use the same calculation method to understand. It’s a long way off. In short, the “Price Law” really doesn’t say that pricing can’t be differentiated. So some businesses depend on people asking prices, and those that look like rich people will sell them more expensive, which is not illegal. .. I encountered a Meituan takeaway that charges an extra RMB for the delivery fee, and the account for the overpaid is for membership. The order was placed on two mobile phones, the same dish, the same address, the same amount, and the same coupon, and the order was placed in the same minute and one second. Then I was ready to go to court, and when I wrote the complaint, I was confused by quoting the legal provisions. I always follow the conclusion to find the law, and it is embarrassing to not find a useful law. So I know this problem. Only the industry leaders in the “Anti-Monopoly Law” get fair prices, and neither the price law nor the judicial interpretation says anything about it. So I have to prove that Meituan Takeaway is the industry leader. You still have to have credible evidence, not the analysis report of a private company. Just like the appraisal agency must have CMA qualification, it cannot engage in appraisal without qualification. But the industry analysis report does not have the kind of national certification qualification. You don’t even have a place to look for it, regardless of whether the report needs money or not. After searching for a whole day, it was Meituan’s 18-year and 19-year listed company annual report that recognized the industry leader and leading position. .. Not only I am facing this problem, but now it seems that the Industry and Commerce Bureau is also facing this problem. The industry analysis reports of private companies cannot be used as evidence, just like waste paper. That’s why there is such a complicated argument. Otherwise, if there is an evidence attribute that supports the industry analysis report by law, it won’t be so laborious. This is the work of industry analysis organizations. The beginning is the conclusion, and the rest is the process. Because of the lack of this qualification, there is no organization that can issue a legal effect report, and no report can be used as evidence. Then it can only be written by the Industrial and Commercial Bureau. …Finally, let’s talk about Meituan takeaway. The suit was withdrawn, and Meituan compensated five thousand. The reason was also found. The point where the member number was opened was the gate of the community (earlier). At that time, the name of the gate of the community on the AutoNavi map was the name of the community. Later, the map changed. The dot at the door of the neighborhood was written as the east gate of a certain neighborhood, and the dot on the neighborhood name went to the middle of the neighborhood. The other number without a member is located in the middle of the community (later in time). The distance between the two points of longitude and latitude is 100 meters. Meituan also found out the specific time when the address was filled in. The two numbers filled in the address are one year apart. The order is literally the same address, but it is an integer of the positioning distance encountered in this one hundred meters. From the store to me, it is about the difference between 1950 and 2050 meters. If it exceeds, it will cost a dollar. This situation can be regarded as a technical defect. After all, the number of buildings added after the positioning point is the same. The building number is not included in the distance measurement is the fault of Meituan, which constitutes the factual consequence of fraudulent consumers. If it is judged, the interpretation of public opinion is unimaginable. So Meituan decided to pay me some money and let me withdraw the lawsuit. Why, because this case changed from summary procedure to ordinary procedure (the court decided to transfer), look at Wu Shengwei’s case against iQiyi in the Beijing Internet Court, the simplified transfer to ordinary, and then the judgment in court. I am also at the Beijing Internet Court. If you are a court, facing the topic that big data is familiar with, it is the best to be able to pronounce a judgment in court so that the public opinion can be cleaned up. In fact, I didn’t post it online, and there was no turmoil, but how could others know that, after all, how can anyone not post a lawsuit?

查看文章

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

Foreigners say that China’s top talents have flowed into the government. In the United States, the elites have chosen high-paying jobs such as finance, and civil servants have absorbed second-rate talents. There is some truth to this. Therefore, it is not impossible for the Shanghai government and the staff to be masters and doctors in economics. It is reasonable to issue such a research report-style punishment decision. This should not be showing off skills, but the instinctive way of thinking and writing. But such a punishment decision different from the official document can be issued, which also shows the openness of his leadership. If it is a closed department, then similar punishment decisions must have a format, which is more mature, more invulnerable, and more in line with government language. But such a decision letter also bears a certain risk. After all, this kind of liberal writing style is easy to be attacked by others, especially by the legal counsel of the subject of punishment, if it wants to. In short, we should encourage its emergence, as long as new things are not evil, they should be encouraged.

heloword
7 months ago

This decision is actually a joint cooperation between market regulators and academia (a teacher from a university in Shanghai), and it should not be the first time that tools such as “relevant market definitions” have been used in antitrust analysis, but this time it has spread more widely. Many teachers who do research on industrial economics in the circle of friends are also forwarding it. It may be because the analysis process is more concretely announced for everyone to judge, and it also allows everyone to see the possibility of introducing economic tools into more case analysis in the future. In fact, a mature anti-monopoly analysis atmosphere should be: government departments boldly challenge, carefully verify evidence, pay attention to corporate actions that may violate the law, and then punish them after finding sufficient evidence. However, due to data and time constraints (after all, it is impossible to see the market conditions long enough after a company’s monopolistic behavior), or fail to consider the special factors of the market, the anti-monopoly policy decisions made may have limitations. The role of the academic community is to review historical anti-monopoly cases, to more accurately and comprehensively assess the impact of corporate actions, so as to provide a basis for future anti-monopoly law enforcement. These two aspects need to promote each other. If anti-monopoly law enforcement does not consider various influence mechanisms, then naturally there will be no one in the academic community to do this kind of research; on the contrary, the research results of the academic community can in turn help law enforcement officers provide Ideas and basis for law enforcement. As far as I know, the FTC’s annual microeconomic forums and DoJ’s weekly seminars all play a role in this regard. A typical case is the merger of Miller and Coors in 2009. FTC and DoJ finally gave up the challenge because they believed that the merger of these two beer companies could bring sufficient cost reductions and thereby improve social welfare. Then Miller and Weinberg (2017) reviewed this merger and found that the price rose significantly after the merger, which introduced a corporate collusion mechanism. In 2020, there was another reflection on the role of HHI in antitrust, and it was found that compared with the absolute value of HHI, the possible change of HHI has more impact on welfare (mobile phone codeword, reference can not be remembered), and HHI indicator is judged by each country One of the indicators that market concentration mainly relies on. In short, I hope that domestic anti-monopoly research and law enforcement will gradually mature and keep pace with the times. This is a good thing for the government, enterprises and consumers.

helpyme
7 months ago

The punishment document is suspected of evading the more serious and showing off professional knowledge. First of all, the focus of this case is not on the definition of the relevant market, but on whether it caused competition damage. The penalties spend most of the pen and ink to define the relevant market, which does not conform to the legal argumentation practice in China or even the world. These economic models have not been “out of the circle” much in the world. To a large extent, they are “self-heavy” in the economic circle, and their operability is poor. Especially China’s market data is extremely incomplete and accurate. These quantitative analyses are almost impossible. There is no useless space, which only increases the burden of law enforcement. What’s more “terrifying” is that the quantitative analysis of relevant markets under the framework of bilateral markets is artificially complicating the problem. Whether these platforms are so-called bilateral markets is not without controversy. Even if quantitative analysis is required, traditional methods can be used. The price elasticity test method and market statistical research. Secondly, punishment documents need to be concise and easy to understand, and economic analysis can only be used as a reference, not an absolute proof. There is a lot of controversy within economics. The so-called critical loss, product clustering, cross elasticity and other test methods are not without controversy, and the general public does not understand its meaning at all, and it does not play an educational role at all. On the contrary, it may form a “demonstration” effect, making operation Authors and law enforcement agencies will make a fuss about the analysis of the economic model in the future, wasting a lot of pen and ink. In short, qualitative analysis of relevant market and competition damage and market statistical research should be the general direction of law enforcement reasoning. The vagueness and inaccuracy of economic analysis, as well as domestic academic norms and “platform” problems, are destined to make economic model analysis methods impossible. Occupy the mainstream.

sina156
7 months ago

I’m a counter-reporter. I don’t judge whether the level is high or not. I just want to say that the law enforcement agencies are really tired now. Yes, I am a counter-reporter that the law enforcement agencies are tired. Law enforcement does not require emotional intelligence, nor does it require IQ. The law enforcement machine that is not emotional is the ideal state of the common law system. But now our law enforcement agencies are hung up when their IQ is too low/eQ is too low, and they are hung up when their IQ is too high/EQ is also hung up when they are too high. To be a law enforcement machine with no emotions is even more hung up, restrained and cowering. . Any whistleblower or reported person can threaten law enforcement officials: Believe it or not, I will hold a hearing? Believe it or not, I will engage in administrative reconsideration? I want to sue you! Be careful when you speak, I will find someone to expose you now! It’s quite difficult.

yahoo898
7 months ago

Regardless of the level, the significance is significant, or I want to establish a model based on it. There have been constant anti-monopoly topics in the past few days, and Ali has been punished. However, it is clear that the Shanghai Municipal Market Supervision Administration made an earlier penalty decision. Why is there so much reasoning in this administrative penalty decision? I think it is to release two signals. :1. Let the punished person be convinced and accept the punishment result. The reasoning is clear. 2. Establish a typical case and let various industries and platforms take warning. The development of the Internet has spawned the business of major platforms, reduced costs, and achieved mutual benefit and win-win results. The starting point is good, but as the industry develops too fast, relevant regulations are too late to be implemented, or the law has not kept up with emerging The development of the industry has allowed many platforms to “take advantage”, leading to many new and derivative problems, such as the problem of familiarity, excessive collection and abuse of personal information on the user side, and monopoly on the business side. All these have affected society and people’s lives. Punishment is not the goal. Standardizing the market is the effect to be achieved. Although it is necessary to explain in detail the basis and reasons for the punishment this time, I believe that this awareness will eventually become a popular concept and market access after the subsequent specific regulations and policies are released. A threshold of the.

leexin
7 months ago

After reading the “paper”, I want to ask a question. Without talking about economic principles, we will talk about basic logic. Is it possible to reasonably use “exclusive clauses” and “exclusive clauses” as long as they do not have a “dominant market position”? In other words, in addition to the “exclusive clause” and the “dominant market position”, is it a violation and a fine? If it is, then a number of participants who do not have a dominant position in the market can join together to make full profits through exclusive clauses and exclusive clauses. For example, there are 20 delivery companies, each with only 5% of the market share, and no market dominance individually. Then 20 delivery companies unite and agree on their respective spheres of influence, resulting in de facto exclusive terms and acquisitions. High commissions. How to deal with this? In reality, there should not be too many such examples. Everyone in the industry agrees not to grab customers and not to quit employees, so as to ensure that profits and costs are controllable. Each of these individual companies is not a monopoly. For example, a restaurant street in some scenic spots. For example, employment in certain industries. Has our country dealt with a monopoly case involving “industry alliances”? And if as long as there are exclusive clauses and exclusive clauses, no matter whether you have a dominant market position or not, you will not be allowed and will be punished. Then, what are the previous lots of words and discussions about having a dominant market position? Wouldn’t it be over if the company has an overlord clause that is not allowed? “Exclusivity clause” and “dominant market position” cause penalties. Is it an or or an?

greatword
7 months ago

It feels that it may be a milestone punishment book. 1. In the future, all kinds of enterprises will have to weigh and deal with it. With lessons learned, large and small “monopolies” may become the sword of Damocles wielded by some law enforcement agencies. 2. The “introduction” of ZF staff selection will be intensified. In the future, if you will not write a “thesis”, you may not even have a job. Of course, it can be said that this is the catfish effect to motivate 3. ZF management thinking has begun to improve: it is reasonable and well-founded. Can discuss, give full play to…, it’s good. 4. Silently do big things, don’t mess with the people who make the rules, unless you can make the rules.

loveyou
7 months ago

This is called a professional. This is an administrative penalty decision for the implementation of a “two-choice-one” monopoly for the Internet catering delivery platform service market. It’s not a certain group and a certain hungry, it’s a little-known company called Shipaishi. Similar to an English version of certain hungry or certain group. In the end, he was fined 3% of its sales in 2018, totaling RMB 1,168,600. With this calculation, the total sales will be about 38.95 million, so why is it monopolized? This is where the “Administrative Punishment Decision” came out of the circle. The full text of the punishment is more than 15,000 words, and there are many charts, the text is rigorous and logical, and the hypothetical monopolist test is carried out using multiple economic tools and models… In fact, how to define monopoly has always been a difficult problem. Take Microsoft as an example. It once fought a very famous antitrust lawsuit. In 1997, the US Department of Justice sued it for monopoly. According to common sense, Microsoft’s windows are almost everywhere on every computer. Isn’t this called a monopoly? What is a monopoly? But Microsoft said that you have to look at where this boundary is. If you talk about system software on PCs or desktops, I have a monopoly. But if we put it in the entire software market, my Microsoft accounted for only 4%, how would I call a monopoly? You see, does Microsoft’s sophistry make sense? For another example, if you say that an airline has a monopoly, the airline says yes. I am considered a monopoly in the airline, but in the entire transportation industry, you add all the railway cars. I don’t have a monopoly. You say that a courier company has a monopoly, and the courier company says that if you count the entire logistics industry, I don’t have a monopoly. If you say that coal companies have a monopoly, they say that I don’t have a monopoly in the entire energy company. Therefore, the determination of the boundary is particularly important. And what is the hypothetical monopoly test? Specifically, the test first assumes that there is such a company in a certain market, and the company is the only supplier of the product or type of product. When the company makes a “small but meaningful and non-temporary price increase” for its products, if the customer chooses other products, the price increase becomes unprofitable, thus preventing the assumption This kind of price increase behavior of the monopolist, then the relevant product market cannot be constituted by this product alone. Instead, the substitutes that consumers are most likely to choose should be included in the candidate market, and the above tests should be repeated until a critical point is finally reached. , So that the hypothetical monopolist who supplies the relevant product or service gains market power at this point, that is, the hypothetical monopolist can maximize its profits by keeping the price above the average level. This critical point is usually the standard for dividing the relevant product market. Regarding the price increase standard mentioned in this test, generally speaking, 5-10% is used as the common range. This method is recognized as a high-level analysis method on a global scale. At the same time, a variety of qualitative analysis methods and quantitative calculation tools are used to determine the relevant market and market share. Through this method and various other comprehensive analyses, it is finally determined that from January 2017 to October 2019, “Shi Pai Shi” has a dominant position in Shanghai’s English online food delivery platform service market. To respond with the original text of Shanghai market supervision: In fact, it may not be difficult for scholars in the field of economics; but our law enforcement agencies have the courage to use such a mathematical model and make it public, so he has the courage to come. Accept all kinds of questions that may arise. Of course, this also shows that our law enforcement officers have sufficient confidence to make such a determination. Through this kind of text description, combined with this mathematical model qualitative analysis method and quantitative calculation tool, in fact, the whole conclusion is quite convincing. To defend and adhere to the spirit of the rule of law, the public, whether they are being punished, will be convinced, and punishing clearly is also a business environment! For more content, please pay attention to Zunjia Finance, Hong Kong and US A shares 0 commission ~ risk warning: The content in the article has its own specific position, investment is risky, and trading needs to be cautious. Zunjia strives but cannot guarantee that the above content is completely accurate and reliable, and does not assume any responsibility for the profit or loss arising from the operation of relying on or using third-party information.

strongman
7 months ago

Don’t be scared by the formulas and many nouns inside. Economics content is all supporting arguments. The core content revolves around: Define the market, define the dominance of the market, define the behavior of abusing the dominance of the market in one sentence: by defining the “Shipai” market (the online catering delivery platform service market in Shanghai, China that provides English services), define ” “Shipaishi” is in a dominant market position in this market (Shanghai, English, catering, delivery market), and further define the behavior of “Shipaishi” abusing market dominance (exclusive meal delivery rights clause, exclusive meal delivery rights plan, Acts of restricting transactions, etc.), and ultimately determine their monopolistic behavior and impose penalties. 1. Defining the market When the scope of the market where the operators compete is not clear enough or easy to determine, the relevant market can be defined in accordance with the analytical thinking of the “hypothetical monopolist test”. Both the qualitative analysis based on substitution analysis and the quantitative analysis conducted in accordance with the requirements of the hypothetical monopolist test show that the online catering delivery platform service market that provides English-language services constitutes an independent related commodity market. The relevant geographic market in this case is defined as Shanghai, China, and the relevant commodity market is defined as the online catering delivery platform service market that provides English-language services. 1. Alternative analysis Online catering delivery services and dine-in services do not have an alternative relationship. Online catering delivery platform services and self-operated online catering delivery services of catering companies do not have an alternative relationship. Online catering delivery platform services that provide English services and provide Chinese The online catering delivery platform service does not have a substitution relationship. 2. The hypothetical monopolist test is based on the above analysis of demand substitution and supply substitution, and based on the basic idea of ​​the “Guide” on the hypothetical monopolist test, the hypothetical monopolist is carried out with the help of economic tools Test, use the critical loss analysis method to analyze market transaction data. 2. Defining a dominant market position. According to the Anti-Monopoly Law, a dominant market position refers to an operator’s ability to control commodity prices, quantities or other trading conditions in the relevant market, or to hinder or affect the ability of other operators to enter the relevant market. market status. 1. The parties have a relatively high market share in the relevant market (the number of platform users, daily orders, the number of cooperative restaurant merchants and sales, this agency uses the above 4 data as the statistical caliber of market share) 2. The parties have a significant advantage over the competition The financial and technical conditions of the opponent 3. Other operators are more dependent on the online catering delivery platform services provided by the parties 4. It is more difficult for other operators to enter the relevant market 3. The basic facts of defining the abuse of market dominance (by the parties And relevant personnel’s statement transcripts, written contracts provided by the parties and related operators, correspondence emails, screenshots of WeChat chat records, etc.) 1. The parties and all cooperative restaurant merchants signed a cooperation agreement containing the “exclusive right to delivery clause” 2. The parties Through WeChat communication, production of weekly reports, etc., cooperative restaurant merchants that have not implemented the “exclusive meal delivery rights clause” are required to be removed from the competitor’s platform. 3. The parties have formulated and implemented the “exclusive meal delivery rights plan” analysis and determination (behavior of limited transactions) 1. The party’s act of restricting the transaction substantially squeezed out competitors. 2. The party’s act of restricting the transaction harmed the interests of the cooperative restaurant merchants and users. 3. The party’s act of restricting the transaction did not have justified reasons. Enlightenment: As long as the market positioning is accurate enough, local small and medium-sized companies It also exists within the scope of anti-monopoly law enforcement. The market is open and fair competition!

stockin
7 months ago

How high is the level? Look at Ali’s 18 billion large order. The administrative penalty decision letter issued by the large order is the pinnacle. This kind of pen is definitely not written by a section-level cadre, and the author doesn’t know any expert. Since it is to be released to the public, this document should be the crystallization of a team. For people in the system, it is a pleasure to read this 18 billion legal document. The writing of illegal facts is a very rigorous process of scientific facts. It involves many Internet-specific words and new knowledge. Please read Eye-opened after finishing.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x