Advertisement

China issues final version of anti-monopoly guidelines as Beijing moves to rein in Big Tech

  • SAMR said the new guidelines aim to ‘prevent and stop the monopolistic behaviour of internet platforms and protect fair competition’
  • Implementation details are left to the regulators to decide, as the new law provides only a legal framework with few specific details

Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
8
An Alibaba office building in Shanghai. Beijing is using antitrust as a tool to rein in the unchecked growth of Big Tech. Photo: Bloomberg

China issued the final version of the country’s new antitrust guidelines targeting internet platforms after making dozens of changes to an early draft, creating an important tool for Beijing to crack down on monopolistic practices such as forcing merchants to choose only one online channel or charging different prices for clients.

The rules, which came into effect on Sunday, are based on a draft issued in November and come six weeks after the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), the country’s antitrust regulator, announced an antitrust investigation into e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding for alleged monopolistic conduct. Alibaba, owner of the South China Morning Post, and the regulator, have not provided any updates on the progress of the probe.

While the final document is not materially different from the draft, dozens of changes were made to the earlier version, reflecting the fact that internal debate over how China should apply antitrust to rein in Big Tech continued until the last moment, experts said.

You Yunting, senior partner at Shanghai Debund Law Firm, said the final version included language that had the intent of ensuring “orderly, innovative and healthy development” of the internet platforms.

This change “made the new rules less of a containment policy and more like guidance” for internet platforms, You said.

In another revision, the term “blocking merchants” was added to describe behaviour that could be considered an abuse of market dominance. “This was obviously added for the need of enforcement,” You said.

Advertisement