The issues of antitrust and unfair competition are closely connected to people’s daily lives. To maximize the guiding role of judicial rulings, officials from the Supreme People’s Court interpreted typical cases of antitrust and unfair competition, specifically in key sectors affecting people’s livelihoods such as restaurant services, digital television, natural gas for residential use, and vegetable wholesale. The aim is to clarify rules through judicial decisions and steer businesses towards fair and orderly competition.

**Is a designated wall-mounted boiler required to access natural gas?**

A natural gas company was ordered to pay damages for engaging in tying arrangements. A few years ago, over a dozen villagers in Minhe, a county in Qinghai province, installed wall-mounted gas boilers from a particular gas appliance company. However, when they submitted applications to the county’s only natural gas supplier for residential pipeline service, they were told they must use a specific wall-mounted boiler s instead. Left with no choice, the villagers had to uninstall their boilers and switch to the specified brand. As the original boilers could not be resold at their original price, the gas appliance company incurred losses and subsequently sued for 107,200 yuan in damages.

“The Qinghai Market Supervision Administration made an administrative penalty decision, ruling that the natural gas company violated antitrust laws by tying products without justifiable reasons,” explained He Jun, a judge from the Supreme Court’s Intellectual Property Tribunal. The natural gas company contested this decision through administrative litigation, but it failed to provide evidence to overturn the established facts. Since the installation expenses were already incurred and the safety standards for wall-mounted boilers are stringent, the court ruled to award 80,000 yuan in damages during the first trial, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the second trial.

Since 2019, the number of antitrust cases accepted by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme Court has been steadily increasing, covering a broad range of industries. The tribunal’s officials stated that they are intensifying efforts to punish monopolistic behavior and further regulate market competition in sectors affecting public welfare.

**Can you sell rice noodles if it’s not in the contractual agreement?**

Eight companies engaged in collusion to restrict another company, establishing a horizontal monopoly agreement. The rice noodle producer Yunnan Yirun Dian found that distributors and stalls previously supplying their products were no longer placing orders. It turned out that these distributors and stalls had signed agreements with another rice noodle manufacturer, requiring them to purchase exclusively from the agreed-upon manufacturer or incur penalties. They were also threatened with supply cuts if they didn’t comply.

Additionally, a formal agreement was reached among eight rice noodle manufacturers, including Linqiu Gu Company, not to supply any distributors or stalls violating the agreement while also setting prices for the rice noodles sold to these channels. After some time, Yirun Dian faced insurmountable operational challenges and ceased production. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against the involved companies, claiming that they formed a horizontal monopoly that excluded Yirun Dian from the local market and sought compensation for their economic losses.

“Those accused of monopolistic behavior took measures such as signing guarantees and creating special task forces, establishing reward and punishment systems to ensure adherence to the collusive agreement,” said He Jun. The Supreme Court ordered the accused company to compensate Yirun Dian for economic losses and reasonable expenses amounting to 1.1 million yuan, with other involved parties held jointly responsible. “In this case, several competing businesses colluded to exclude another competitor using contractual arrangements, constituting a horizontal monopoly agreement,” stated a tribunal representative.

**Is it illegal to organize paid traffic manipulation?**

Creating fake traffic based on the platform’s rules constitutes unfair competition. Beijing Weishou Company operates a short video sharing platform that suggests videos based on user interactions, driven by an algorithm evaluating factors like comment counts and shares. However, a network company in Hangzhou developed a suite of services for the platform aimed at executing traffic manipulation tasks, like “gaining followers” or “boosting views” through paid engagement campaigns.

Weishou Company filed a lawsuit against them. “Weishou Company holds legitimate competitive rights regarding video view counts and platform user statistics, which need protection under competition law,” stated Wang Shuxian, a judge from the Hangzhou Yuhang District People’s Court. The court determined that artificially inflating view counts disrupted the platform’s algorithm and provided dishonest users with advantages, ultimately undermining fair competition. The court ruled against the defendants, ordering them to pay 4 million yuan in damages to Weishou Company.

A representative from the Supreme Court’s Civil Division Three mentioned that this case serves as a model in combating the “fake follower and view” black market. The timely and effective use of antitrust laws against false advertising actions has greatly aided in guiding platform operators towards honest business practices, fostering a fair and orderly market environment.