Abstract:The legal debate around online ad blocking demonstrates a tension between user’s freedom and online content providers’ revenue-generating business model. This paper aims to analyze ad blocking from a unique perspective of the Chinese law and practice. Since ad blocking does not violate copyright law, copyright law cannot be a guardian to the ad-based business model. China takes a different approach to protect the ad-based business model under unfair competition law and bans ad blocking software directly by regulation. The Chinese courts held that providing ad blocking software is anti-competitive under a vague general principle of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The special policy reason behind these decisions is that the Chinese government and courts want to maintain this business model and strengthen intellectual property protection. These decisions are reinforced by the regulatory ban of ad blocking software in China. However, the Chinese approach is in the wrong direction. The Chinese courts have applied a principle of “non-interference unless in the public interest” to ad blocking cases but never analyzed the public interest seriously. This paper argues that the “public interest” in the Internet context should be the interests of Internet users. The group of Internet users is large enough to constitute the general public. The public have a compelling interest of autonomy to justify ad blocking. The right approach to solving the ad blocking problem should be flexible, easily adjustable and it should not totally fail one side. Compared to direct regulatory intervention, a flexible judicial approach is better because it could take into consideration a variety of interests and strike a balance in specific cases. And, to regulate new technologies, a soft version of guidelines could be easily adjustable than an immature regulation. The Internet itself is a creative industry developed under the process of “creative destruction”. Any legal intervention shall be careful and not impede the emerging technologies, market structure development and autonomous competition.

Study on the Obligation of Examining Web Keywords in Paid-ranking Services

Transforming the Evaluation of the Rule of Law in China

Critical Analysis of Liability of Internet Service Providers for Indirect Patent Infringement

Comparison of allocation rules for paid placement advertising in search engines

Computational Evaluation of Alternative Paid Placement Mechanisms in Search Engines.

The Limitation and Outlet of «Notice-and-Takedown» Rule Applied in New Network Service

Analysis of civil and commercial law protection based on decentralized Internet

Research on the Potential Trademark Infringement Issues and Negative Effects of Keyword Search Advertisements under the Internet Economy

Paid Placement Strategies for Internet Search Engines

Redefining Duty of Care: Challenges and Solutions for Network Service Providers

Exploring Network Content Ecosystem Evaluation Model Based on Chinese Judicial Discourse of Digital Platform

Should Alibaba Be Liable for the Counterfeiting Activities of Online Stores? on the Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers in Chinese Trade Mark, Copyright and Tort Law

Implementing Sponsored Search in Web Search Engines: Computational Evaluation of Alternative Mechanisms.

The Obligation to Provide "Non-Personalised" Search Results under the Chinese E-commerce Law.

Matching Exactly or Semantically? an Examination of the Effectiveness of Synonym-Based Matching Strategy in Chinese Paid Search Market

Empirical Analyses of Human-powered Search,Faye Wong Case and Privacy Protection

Performance Evaluation of Online Sponsored Search Based on User Log Analysis

Research on the Scope of Obligations of China's Short Video Platforms in the Era of Digital Copyright

The Unique Chinese Legal Approach to Online Ad Blocking: is It in the Right Direction?

The E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China: E-commerce platform operators liability for third-party patent infringement

Examinations of the Plaintiff Qualifications in Administrative Cases in the Regulation of the Securities Market