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?