JD v. Alibaba's "two choice one" case, the first instance result is announced!
On December 29th, the entry # Alibaba was sentenced to compensate JD 1 billion # topped the Weibo hot search list, and its popularity continues to rise.
On the afternoon of December 29th, JD Blackboard News released a statement on the first instance victory of JD v. Alibaba's "two choice one" case. The statement stated that the Beijing Higher People's Court has made a judgment, determining that Alibaba's abuse of market dominance and implementation of a "two choice" monopoly behavior have been established, causing serious damage to JD.com, and has ordered compensation of 1 billion yuan to JD.com.
In response, Alibaba stated that it has been informed of this news and we respect the court's ruling.
Take a look at the details——
JD.com claims to have received a compensation of 1 billion yuan
Alibaba: Respect the judgment result
Firstly, let's take a look at the statement released by JD Blackboard News——
On December 29th, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a first instance judgment in the case of JD v. Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tmall Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Group Holding Co., Ltd., determining that their abuse of market dominance and implementation of "two choice one" monopolistic behavior were established, causing serious damage to JD, and ordered compensation of 1 billion yuan to JD. We appreciate the fair judgment of the court! Thank you to all sectors of society for their support in safeguarding JD's own rights and pursuing fairness and justice!
This judgment is not only a fair ruling by JD.com against the "two choice one" monopoly behavior, but also a landmark moment in maintaining a fair competition order in the market through the rule of law. It will also be a significant contribution to China's anti monopoly legal process.
Fair competition is the core of a market economy, and monopolistic behaviors such as "two choices" not only restrict market competition, damage the legitimate rights and interests of brands, businesses, and consumers, but also weaken the innovation and vitality of market development.
From the lawsuit initiated by JD.com in 2017 to resist the "one out of two" monopoly, to the breaking of the industry's hidden rules of "super anchor price monopoly" in 2023, JD.com has always been seeking development for brands and businesses, and competing for low prices for consumers. This judgment has greatly inspired JD's business belief in adhering to the right path of success, and we will devote ourselves with greater confidence to supporting the high-quality development of the real economy.
In response, Alibaba stated that it has been informed of this news and we respect the court's ruling.
"Choose either" to disrupt e-commerce order
The conflict and lawsuit between JD.com and Alibaba regarding the "one out of two" policy has a long history.
Looking back, as early as 2013, JD.com publicly stated that some merchants were forced to "choose between two" by Alibaba. On the eve of Double 11, 2015, "Mulin Sen" sent an official letter to JD.com stating that due to pressure from a certain platform, the brand would withdraw JD's venue resources. Subsequently, JD.com reported under its real name that Alibaba had "forced" merchants to choose between two options, seriously disrupting the order of the e-commerce market.
In 2017, JD.com officially filed a lawsuit against Alibaba with the Beijing Higher People's Court, choosing between two options. In 2019, the Supreme People's Court made a final ruling rejecting Alibaba's request for "objection to jurisdiction" and determining that the Beijing Higher People's Court has jurisdiction over this case.
In 2020, the Beijing Higher People's Court organized a non-public cross examination of the JD v. Alibaba "two choice one" monopoly case. Until this disclosure by JD.com, in December 2023, the Beijing Higher People's Court determined that Alibaba's abuse of market dominance and implementation of a "two choice" monopoly behavior was established, and ordered a compensation of 1 billion yuan to JD.com.
In February 2021, the State Council Anti Monopoly Commission issued the "Anti Monopoly Guidelines of the State Council Anti Monopoly Commission on the Platform Economy". The Guidelines mention that anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies should adhere to four principles to carry out anti-monopoly supervision in the field of platform economy: protecting fair market competition, conducting scientific and efficient supervision in accordance with the law, stimulating innovation and creativity, and safeguarding the legitimate interests of all parties.
In addition, in April 2021, Alibaba was fined RMB 18.228 billion by the State Administration for Market Regulation for choosing between two, setting a historical record. At that time, Alibaba stated, "We sincerely accept and resolutely comply with this punishment. We will strengthen our lawful operations, further strengthen the construction of compliance systems, focus on innovative development, and better fulfill social responsibilities.".
In August 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation stated in the "Provisions on Prohibiting Unfair Competition on the Internet (Draft for Public Solicitation of Opinions)" that it will face stricter and more detailed supervision of unfair competition behaviors in the online field, such as the "two choice" of online platforms, big data killing, and false online advertising and transactions.
For the common "two to one" phenomenon on internet platforms, it is required that operators shall not use technological means to reduce transaction opportunities between other operators by influencing user selection, limiting flow, blocking, and delisting goods, and implement "two to one" behavior, obstructing or disrupting the normal operation of network products or services legally provided by other operators, and disrupting the fair competition order in the market.
Time has changed, and in recent years, with the continuous struggle of e-commerce giants and the rise of live streaming newcomers, it is no longer common to demand consumers to choose between two options. However, regulatory authorities continue to remind businesses to strictly prohibit "one or two" behavior.
For example, during last month's "Double Eleven" period, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued the "Double Eleven" Network Centralized Promotion Compliance Reminder to e-commerce platform enterprises. It is mentioned that unfair competition is strictly prohibited. Strictly prohibit illegal activities such as choosing between two options and participate in market competition fairly. Take proactive measures to prevent illegal activities such as false trading, brushing orders, and speculation within the platform.
