These online unfair competition behaviors will usher in strong supervision
Buy "good reviews" to brush "sales", spread false or misleading information to discredit competitors, use traffic hijacking, interference, malicious incompatibility and other behaviors to hinder and undermine the legitimate operations of other operators, and use algorithms and other technical means to carry out big data "killing" "Familiar"...These acts of unfair competition on the Internet will usher in strong supervision and are expected to be rectified.
Today, the State Administration of Market Supervision issued the "Provisions on Prohibition of Unfair Competition Acts on the Internet (Draft for Public Comment)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft for Comments") to solicit opinions from the public. The deadline for feedback is September 15, 2021.
The relevant person in charge of the General Administration of Market Supervision stated that the new regulations are aimed at stopping and preventing unfair online competition, maintaining a fair competition in the market order, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers.
Say "no" to fictitious reviews, volume, views, etc.
In July of this year, the State Administration of Market Supervision announced a typical case of anti-unfair competition enforcement in key areas in 2021-False Propaganda on the Internet, fictional evaluations of some merchants using the influence of influencers, and fictitious attention and traffic in live broadcasts. The problem was exposed.
The reporter noticed that under the control of the single-checking gang, "fans" can have, "interactions" can be bought, "acceptance" can be increased, and "broadcasts" can increase.
The "Draft Opinions" clarified that operators must not use the following methods to make false or misleading commercial propaganda about the operators themselves or their products' sales status, transaction information, operating data, user evaluations, etc., to deceive or mislead consumers Or the relevant public, including traffic data such as fictitious user reviews, collections, likes, votes, followers, subscriptions, forwardings, etc.; misleading display and other methods are used to conceal negative reviews, or pre-receive good reviews or negative reviews Post-positioning, or does not significantly distinguish the evaluation of different goods or services, etc.
Several situations that clearly constitute defamation of competitors
In recent years, commercial slander cases between companies are not uncommon.
In order to suppress competitors, some companies publish false information online to discredit competitors.
For this reason, the "Draft Opinions" pointed out that operators must not perform the following actions to damage competitors’ business reputation and product reputation, including organizing or instructing others to maliciously evaluate competitors’ products in the name of consumers; using or organizing or instructing others Maliciously disseminate false or misleading information through the Internet; use the Internet to issue false or misleading risk warnings, customer notices, warning letters, lawyer letters, or reporting letters to competitors’ products.
The "Draft of Opinions" also clarified that "damaging the commercial reputation and product reputation of competitors" refers to the significant reduction or decline of other operators' network traffic, commercial advertising revenue, financing capacity, etc., as well as transaction opportunities, predictable commercial benefits, and bargaining power. , Brand value and other potential competitiveness have been compromised.
In addition, organizations or individuals such as self-media, post comment service providers or users, and network naval forces must not help other operators to implement the above-mentioned actions.
Traffic hijacking through technical means is prohibited
The homepage of the browser is obviously set to a website that I use frequently, but the homepage is changed to another website after closing the browser and reopening it.
This is called "browser homepage hijacking" and is a type of traffic hijacking.
Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, believes that there are many types of unfair competition in the Internet field.
"Browser homepage hijacking" uses technical means to interfere with the user's choice, which actually misleads the user and violates the user's right to know and to choose.
The "Draft Opinions" clarified that without the consent of other operators, operators shall not implement the following traffic hijacking behaviors such as inserting links or forcing target redirection in network products or services legally provided by other operators: legally provided by other operators Insert jump links and embed your own product or service links into your network products or services; use keyword association and other functions to set up links to your own products or services to deceive or mislead users to click; other traffic hijacking through technical means behavior.
There are clear regulations for the identification of big data "killing familiarity"
In recent years, the issue of big data "killing familiarity" has attracted much attention from all walks of life.
In many areas, such as online car-hailing, online travel, online ticketing, online shopping and takeaway, netizens have once exposed the problem of big data "killing familiarity".
But without exception, the companies involved have denied it, and the final result is also gone. One of the important reasons is that there is no clear stipulation on the identification of big data "familiarity".
Liu Junhai, a professor at the School of Law of Renmin University of China, told reporters that there is no clear and unified definition of big data "familiarity", which has led to inconsistent understanding between related companies and consumers.
The "Draft Opinions" clarified that operators must not use data, algorithms and other technical means to collect and analyze the counterparty’s transaction information, browse content and frequency, and the brand and value of the terminal equipment used in the transaction to deal with transactions with the same conditions. The other party unreasonably provides different transaction information, infringes the other party's right to know, choose, and fair transaction rights, and disrupts the fair transaction order in the market.
Transaction information includes transaction history, willingness to pay, consumption habits, individual preferences, ability to pay, degree of dependence, credit status, etc.
(Report from Beijing, August 17th)
Yang Zhaokui