China: New Framework for Resale Price Maintenance Analysis

Adrian Emch,Hogan Lovells

2020-02-05

Abstract:Is resale price maintenance per se illegal in China, or subject to a rule of reason analysis? Who bears the burden to prove anti-competitive effects, or their absence, in government investigations? Are the approach and standard for resale price maintenance different for government investigations and private antitrust litigation?

Law

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Antitrust control of mergers and acquisitions: a case study of China

kevin x li,pizhao che,ming du

2005-01-01

Abstract:The formulation of a functional competition law and policy, especially a workable antitrust control mechanism for merger and acquisitions (‘‘M&As’’), in transitional economies is a daunting endeavour. Various economic, political, and legal constraints peculiar to emerging economies tend to impose the substantial risk that competition policy will be abused. Nevertheless, previously almost the exclusive province of Western antitrust agencies, control of mergers is emerging as an important element of systems of competition in transitional economies. Business managers are discovering that executing a specific transaction may elicit notification of a review not only by competition agencies in jurisdictions with mature antitrust laws such as European Union and the United States, but also in
The Anti-monopoly Principles of Resale Price Maintenance under Platform Economy

Tang Yaojia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16538/J.CNKI.JSUFE.2021.04.002

2021-08-01

Abstract:Digital economy requires the establishment of an effective antitrust enforcement system to guarantee the high-quality enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law. In recent years, the resale price maintenance （RPM） has been a focal point in the judicial practice of antitrust enforcement in China. However, the proper application of anti-monopoly principles towards resale price maintenance （RPM） has been in great controversy. Based on analyzing the development of per se rule and rule of reason, we investigate their core and point out that per se rule and rule of reason are complementary, and rule of reason is a system that embodies the economic fact, the economic theory, and the procedure guarantee. In platform economy, resale price maintenance （RPM） has three new features, which are conducting resale price maintenance （RPM） by algorithm, mainly conducted on online platforms with the characteristic of two-sided market, influencing multiple subjects and markets in terms of its economic impact. The efficiency effects of resale price maintenance （RPM） are mainly reflected by overcoming the problem of “free riding” in distribution, achieving network effects, proving high quality, stimulating creativity, etc. The anti-competitive effects of resale price maintenance （RPM） are mainly reflected by facilitating price collusion, market foreclosure, and exploitative pricing. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply rule of reason in specific case review. In platform economy, the application of rule of reason in resale price maintenance （RPM） cases should focus on the analysis of its impact on non-price factors, strengthen algorithm investigation, and fully consider the unique features of platform economy, such as network effects, multi-homing, etc.Despite the fact that the anti-monopoly authority conducts a prudent enforcement and some economic analysis, according to the Antimonopoly Law of China, the antimonopoly rule for resale price maintenance （RPM） cases is per se rule. The judicial practice of China anti-monopoly enforcement demonstrates that multiple reasons can affect enforcement quality and increase the risk of enforcement fault, and that is the simple application of per se rule, the follow-up enforcement of local anti-monopoly authorities, the different principles applied between admiration and judicial authorities, and the inconsistency of punishment standards. It is necessary to stick to rule of reason as the basic principle for vertical restraints and construct the system by strengthening the core of rule of reason to guarantee the high-quality enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law.

Law,Economics,Business
Resale Price Maintenance – A Beneficial Tool or a Hardcore Restriction of Competition?

Ananta Jaswal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551048

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:A major part of antitrust violations are comprised by price fixing arrangements, as they operate against the standard of price being determined by market forces. Such arrangements are a cause of concern in both horizontal and vertical markets. In this regard, Resale Price Maintenance agreements have been a subject of debate in India as well as in various jurisdictions due to a milieu of very interesting questions surrounding them. This paper discusses the treatment accorded to Resale Price Maintenance agreements in India while analysing the Competition Commission of India’s adjudication on this subject. It further assesses the issues and implications arising from the existing framework and highlights the need to develop the jurisprudence on this subject in order to gain a deeper insight into its treatment under our law.
Resale Price Maintenance in China: an Economic Perspective

Shan Jiang,D. Daniel Sokol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2509854

2015-01-01

Journal of Antitrust Enforcement

Abstract:Journal Article Resale price maintenance in China: an economic perspective Get access Shan Jiang, Shan Jiang Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar D Daniel Sokol D Daniel Sokol D. Daniel Sokol, Professor of Law, Holland Law Center, University of Florida. Email: sokold@law.ufl.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Volume 3, Issue suppl_1, October 2015, Pages i132–i154, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnv010 Published: 04 June 2015
Anti-Monopoly Cases On Unfair Pricing In China

Xiao Fu,Heng Ju

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92831-9_9

2018-01-01

Abstract:Prohibition of unfair pricing is an area that has seen a growing number of enforcement activities in China. Unfair pricing, also called excessive pricing in some cases, is ruled under Article 17, Paragraph 1, of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML"), whereby dominant firms are prohibited to "sell commodities at unfairly high prices or buy commodities at unfairly low prices." In this chapter, we will introduce the relevant legal framework and provide a review of recent typical cases. The major cases include the investigation against Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") by the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") and the landmark decision issued by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in Huawei v. InterDigital. Both cases are related to licensing patents that are essential to standards. There are also several rulings in the markets of certain essential input products such as natural gas pipelines and essential drugs. Given the role of the Chinese economy in the world, a review of anti-monopoly enforcement in this field would be helpful to practitioners and researchers.
Resale price maintenance: by object infringements and per se infringements – mind the gap!

Christopher Hutton,Victor Levy,Christopher Peacock,Pierre Chellet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2023.04.02

2023-12-28

Competition Law Journal

Abstract:On 29 June 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a preliminary judgment with respect to the status of resale price maintenance under EU competition law (Case C-211/22 Super Bock EU:C:2023:529). It clarified the notion of resale price maintenance and provided guidance as to the treatment of such conduct as a hardcore restriction and a potential by object restriction of competition under Article 101 TFEU. The purpose of this article is to assess how competition authorities and companies may use such recent case law to better understand resale price maintenance. We argue that, far from a per se infringement, the characterization of vertical price fixing as a restriction of competition ‘by object’ requires a detailed assessment of the context. In some cases (such as a risk of free riding, or protection of brand image), context may indeed cast doubt as to the alleged anticompetitive nature of such conduct.
On Defining Relevant Markets in Implementing the Antimonopoly Law of China

Xianlin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11463-008-0026-4

2008-01-01

Frontiers of Law in China

Abstract:Defining relevant markets is the foundation of establishing main antimonopoly regimes and the key issue in enforcing antimonopoly law, which often reflects the leniency or strictness of enforcement. In the process of defining relevant product market, the main factors to be considered include physical function and use purpose of product, product price, consumers’ preference and substitutable possibility of product supply. In defining relevant geographic market, the main consideration involves transportation cost and product characteristics, product price, consumers’ preference and barriers to market access. On the occasion of forthcoming enforcement of the Antimonopoly Law of China , the enforcement authorities should draw up a specific rule of the definition of relevant markets.
Antitrust Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights in China

Liyang Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2648736

2015-01-01

Abstract:This article reviews the practice of competition agencies, including NDRC, Mofcom and SAIC, and courts in China regarding the application of antitrust law to intellectual property rights related anti-competitive conduct. It covers all the cases and regulations coming out after the adoption of China's Anti-monopoly Law. Although China has progressed considerably in this domain, there are still some imperfections.
On the Enforcement of China's Antimonopoly Law in the Field of Intellectual Property

Xian-lin WANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13806/j.cnki.issn1008-7095.2009.06.002

2009-01-01

Abstract:It is both complicated and sensitive to enforce the antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property in China.Some basic issues needs to be resolved,especially issues such as the relationship between protection of intellectual property and enforcement of antimonopoly law,between abuse of intellectual property rights and elimination or restriction of competition,and between intellectual property and the dominant position of the market.The fundamental framework for analyzing the enforcement of China's antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property involves both general issues of antimonopoly and special issues related to intellectual property.China should learn from the experiences of other countries and regions,and formulate guidelines on how to enforce the antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property.
The Regulation of Injunctive Relief on Standard Essential Patents Within China’s Anti-monopoly Law

Yuting Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020025

2020-12-01

World Competition

Abstract:Competition concerns arising from the seeking of injunctions by FRAND-encumbered (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) standard essential patent (SEP) owners have become a contentious issue. This issue has attracted the attention of many competition enforcement authorities and no consensus is reached as to the compatibility of such injunctive relief with competition law. This is also a hard and challenging problem faced by China. A coherent and balanced response is urgently needed under current China’s legal framework. Therefore, this article proposes that a basic regulating approach should be established first to treat the seeking of injunctions by FRAND-encumbered SEP owners as an independent anti-competitive practice prohibited by the Anti-monopoly Law. Then, an analysis framework should be established to consider the circumstances in which and the extent to which such seeking of injunctions should be limited from the perspective of competition enforcement. The behaviour of both SEP owners and SEP users should be properly examined. standard, standard essential patent (SEP), injunctive relief, injunction, competition, antitrust, Anti-monopoly law, competition law, fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory (FRAND), reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND).
Administrative Monopoly and the Anti-Monopoly Law: an examination of the debate in China

Gordon Y. M. Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560802576026

IF: 3.126

2009-03-01

Journal of Contemporary China

Abstract:After more than a decade of preparation, China finally passed the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) on 30 August 2007. This paper examines the debate over whether or not administrative monopoly should be included in the ambit of the AML, which took place throughout the drafting process of this new law. Administrative monopoly refers to the abusive use of administrative power by government agencies to engage in monopolistic activities. Owing to the administrative nature of this type of monopoly, the intent to regulate it by an economic law, such as the AML, has stirred up much controversy. Having analyzed the arguments both in support of and in opposition to the inclusion, this paper suggests the need to adopt a more comprehensive scheme in tackling administrative monopoly. Also, the enforcement mechanism of the AML will have to be strengthened in order to prevent this new law from degenerating into ‘a toothless tiger’. Furthermore, the competition law regime of China will benefit from in-depth research in overseas anti-monopoly practices. In particular, the experiences of the former socialist states in Europe should be taken into account, given that they are similarly undergoing the transition from a planned economy to a market economy.

area studies
China’s Antitrust Administrative Litigations: Problems and Solutions

Liyang Hou,Shuai Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4195155

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:The administrative litigations play an essential role in the Anti-Monopoly Law in China. Empirical research suggests that despite the preliminary development antitrust administrative litigations present the “four lowness” phenomenon, namely low start-up, low total case number, low rate of lawsuits against the competition authorities, and low winning rate for plaintiffs. The most severe problems remain two, namely plaintiffs’ grounding and the scope of judicial review. It is both empirically urgent and theoretically necessary to establish special rules for antitrust administrative procedure. In order to promote and improve effective antitrust enforcement, it is proposed to recognize plaintiffs’ grounding based on procedural participation, to let justice urge competition authorities to adopt procedural guidelines, and to mildly extend the scope of judicial review.
Qualcomm: How China Has Invalidated Traditional Business Models on Standard Essential Patents

Liyang Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpw064

2016-01-01

Journal of European Competition Law & Practice

Abstract:The antitrust enforcement in the People's Republic of China (China) is making tremendous progress—in a way much faster than sometimes expected. At the beginning of 2016 (the eighth year since the adoption of the AML), the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) has been enforced by Chinese competition agencies and courts in at least 1,765 cases (there were a number of unpublished cases), including 1,327 merger reviews, 342 court judgments, and 96 antitrust investigations. Almost every type of antitrust issues has come to the front—even that issue which is resented by many as one of the most challenging ones: the abuse of standard essential patents (SEPs). That very issue was at the centre of the Qualcomm case1 decided at the beginning of 2015 by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), 1 of the 3 competition agencies in China. Within the decision, the NDRC ruled that a number of Qualcomm's business models infringed the AML, and imposed a record fine of about RMB 6.1 Billion Yuan (roughly 830 Million Euros), the second biggest in the antitrust history across the world.
GOVERNING CHINA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MONOPOLIES UNDER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW: A TEN-YEAR REVIEW (2008–2018) AND BEYOND

Zhanjiang Zhang,Baiding Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhz009

2019-01-01

Abstract:ABSTRACT An important focus of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) is “administrative monopolies”—government-imposed restraints on competition. Since adopting the AML in 2008, China gradually has strengthened its efforts to curb administrative monopolies. Despite notable reforms such as the creation of the Fair Competition Review System (FCRS), government restrictions remain a major obstacle to competition in China’s economy. The 2008 legislation narrowly defined what constitutes improper government intervention, adopted a permissive standard for determining when public restraints were legitimate, and relied heavily on internal administrative controls to correct infringements. This paper draws upon experience in China and abroad to enhance the ability of China’s competition authorities to challenge administrative monopolies. Suggested upgrades include augmenting the robustness of FCRS, introducing new tools to improve competition advocacy, bolstering the ability of competition authorities to initiate or join litigation to attack administrative monopolies, and narrowing the range of justifications that can immunize public restraints.

economics,law
Research on the Path of Identifying the Online Live-Streaming Marketing Behaviors within the Framework of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China

Tianya Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpssh.v17i.680

2022-05-10

BCP Social Sciences & Humanities

Abstract:Although online live-streaming marketing shows nowadays play an important role in stimulating consumption and activating economic circulation, problems also arise and become more prominent, especially reflected from the marketing participants who are suspected of monopoly damage to the order of market competition. However, due to the absence of applicable antitrust norms for online live-streaming marketing, the legislation by far is insufficient for the determination of the subject in the process of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Worse still, there are legislative defects in constituting monopoly agreements and complex factors affecting the dominant market position. In recent years, foreign countries have attached great importance to the Internet antitrust issue and taken a number of powerful measures, such as the implementation of the hub-and-spoke conspiracy for identifying Internet platform and the clarification of the platform monopoly "synergistic behavior" judgment standards, etc., which is worthy of reference. China, in this sense, should adopt the antitrust law rules for the determination of the unincorporated form of the subjects in online live-streaming marketing, improve the identification path of online live-streaming marketing constituting the hub-and-spoke Conspiracy and collaborative behavior, update the determination criteria of the market dominance in the online live-streaming marketing and enrich the antitrust law determination procedure. All these methods will help to optimize the antitrust law identification path of the online live-streaming marketing.
Advertising Information, Advertising Precision and Resale Price Maintenance

Suli Lin,Guan-Ru Chen,Liang-Yu Heish,Kai-Chi Hsu,Sheng-Yeh Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33423/JABE.V21I1.1462

2019-05-12

Journal of Applied Business and Economics

Abstract:As consumers use the retail price as an estimator of product quality, the producer expects the retail price to efficiently signal the quality information. However, in the presence of price competition among retailers, consumers cannot predict quality by observing prices because they cannot identify whether the price discounts result from quality downgrade, or just retail supply’s increase. Since market price movements send noises over quality judgement, the producer uses resale price maintenance to control noises from retail supply. When resale price maintenance is prohibited by antitrust law, a rational expectations model predicts that the manufacturer can replace resale price maintenance with advertising.

Economics,Business
Recent Developments in China’s Antimonopoly Regulations on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

Wang Xianlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603x17735197

2017-01-01

The Antitrust Bulletin

Abstract:Over the past decade, while strengthening intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, China has also explored means to regulate the abuse of IPRs. IPR protection in China is mainly based on the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), in particular Article 55. Recent years have seen more and more judicial and administrative enforcement practices related to China’s antimonopoly regulation on the abuse of IPRs. Provisions on the Prohibition of the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition was released on April 7, 2015, and the draft of Antimonopoly Guidelines in Relation to the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights was released for public comment in early 2017. It can be expected that China’s antimonopoly guidelines on the regulation of abuses of IPRs will come out in the near future.
Resale Price Maintenance in Poland – Further Steps to Its Liberalization or Stuck in a Status Quo?

D. Aziewicz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901362

2016-06-05

Abstract:Due to the recognition of their positive market effects, the evolving approach to minimum or fixed resale price maintenance (RPM) creates, in many countries, the requirement of analyzing their true economic outcomes. In the light of newest judgments delivered by the Polish Supreme Court, the purpose of this article is to analyze if it is still justified to qualify RPM as a multilateral practice that restricts competition ‘by object’ under Polish law.

Law,Economics
Abuse of Market Dominance under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law: the Case of Tetra Pak

Xiao Fu,Guofu Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-018-9638-8

2019-01-01

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:In this paper, we analyze a recent antitrust case of abuse of dominance that was decided by a Chinese administrative enforcement agency under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”). A key issue in this case involved the impact of loyalty rebate programs used by a dominant firm. We provide an overview of the case, highlight the main points of the decision, and focus on the assessment of loyalty rebates. As the first antitrust ruling in China involving loyalty discounts, we expect that the decision will serve as an important reference in antitrust enforcement in China.
Rethinking the Application of China’s Antimonopoly Law in the Area of Intellectual Property Rights

Wang Xianli

2013-01-01

Abstract:Established with specific legislative background and purpose,article 55 of China’s Antimonopoly Law makes clear the basic principle and standpoint of the application of the Law in the area of Intellectual Property Rights(IPRs).Its role is,nevertheless,declaratory and illustrative,and the validity of an exercise of is not judged directly according to it.The abuse of IPRs should be understood by the general meaning rather than,consciously and subconsciously,by the specific meaning of case law of some countries.Abusing is not necessarily monopolistic behavior,but monopolistic behavior involving is certainly an abuse.When formulating the enforcement guidelines on antimonopoly law in the area of IPRs,what must be well-balanced is the relationship between drawing lessons from foreign experience and being based on the reality of China,and between principle and operation as well.

China: New Framework for Resale Price Maintenance Analysis

Antitrust control of mergers and acquisitions: a case study of China

The Anti-monopoly Principles of Resale Price Maintenance under Platform Economy

Resale Price Maintenance – A Beneficial Tool or a Hardcore Restriction of Competition?

Resale Price Maintenance in China: an Economic Perspective

Anti-Monopoly Cases On Unfair Pricing In China

Resale price maintenance: by object infringements and per se infringements – mind the gap!

On Defining Relevant Markets in Implementing the Antimonopoly Law of China

Antitrust Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights in China

On the Enforcement of China's Antimonopoly Law in the Field of Intellectual Property

The Regulation of Injunctive Relief on Standard Essential Patents Within China’s Anti-monopoly Law

Administrative Monopoly and the Anti-Monopoly Law: an examination of the debate in China

China’s Antitrust Administrative Litigations: Problems and Solutions

Qualcomm: How China Has Invalidated Traditional Business Models on Standard Essential Patents

GOVERNING CHINA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MONOPOLIES UNDER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW: A TEN-YEAR REVIEW (2008–2018) AND BEYOND

Research on the Path of Identifying the Online Live-Streaming Marketing Behaviors within the Framework of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China

Advertising Information, Advertising Precision and Resale Price Maintenance

Recent Developments in China’s Antimonopoly Regulations on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

Resale Price Maintenance in Poland – Further Steps to Its Liberalization or Stuck in a Status Quo?

Abuse of Market Dominance under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law: the Case of Tetra Pak

Rethinking the Application of China’s Antimonopoly Law in the Area of Intellectual Property Rights