Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding JD.com's alleged interference with merchants' rights to operate on other platforms, particularly in relation to a significant fine imposed on a major home appliance brand for pricing violations linked to competition with Douyin [2][3][5]. Summary by Sections JD.com's Actions - JD.com has reportedly imposed a fine of 5 million yuan on a well-known home appliance brand due to pricing discrepancies where the product was cheaper on Douyin compared to JD.com [3][5]. - The fine was justified by JD.com on the grounds that the merchant's pricing was significantly higher than that of similar products on other platforms during the same time period [3][4]. Merchant Reactions - Merchants have expressed frustration on social media regarding JD.com's practices, with many sharing their experiences of receiving similar fines [6][7]. - Following public backlash, JD.com accepted an appeal from the affected brand and canceled the fine, although this did not change the fact that the fine was initially issued due to lower pricing on Douyin [5][6]. Market Competition Concerns - The article highlights concerns about JD.com's "choose one from two" policy, which restricts merchants from participating in promotions on competing platforms, potentially violating market competition laws [2][4]. - Douyin's representatives have called for regulatory bodies to investigate the situation to ensure fair market practices and protect merchants' rights to operate freely [7].

Core Viewpoint - Recent rumors regarding "JD's hefty fines against Midea" and "JD's exclusive selection" stem from JD's requirement that prices on its platform cannot exceed those on other platforms, leading to price competition with Douyin's live streaming [1] Group 1: JD's Pricing Strategy - JD's insistence on competitive pricing aims to ensure that high-volume brands like Midea maintain their sales on its platform [1] - JD's actions have been interpreted as limiting merchants' autonomy to operate on other platforms, particularly Douyin [1] Group 2: Douyin's Response - Douyin's e-commerce representative confirmed that JD's practices indeed restrict merchants' rights to operate freely on other platforms [1] - Douyin's home appliance head, Li Wentao, stated that JD's actions constitute "exclusive selection" and highlighted JD's prohibition on merchants using Douyin's promotional coupons during major sales events [1]

Core Points - A significant number of JD.com delivery users received notifications for free meals around 8 PM, with the promotion lasting nearly 60 seconds, leading to widespread discussion on social media [2] - JD.com Payment confirmed that this was part of the "11.11 benefits" campaign, aimed at inviting customers to enjoy free meals, with more free meal activities planned [2] - During the 11.11 shopping festival, JD.com Payment is running a "1 million free meal daily draw" campaign, where users shopping on JD.com and using JD Payment can win free meals, totaling 1 million free meals available throughout the promotion [2]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around a 5 million yuan penalty notice sent by JD.com to Midea Group, which has sparked discussions about potential "choose one" practices in the market [3] - JD.com has denied the allegations of "choose one" practices, asserting that Midea has also clarified the misinformation surrounding the reports [3] - JD.com claims that the rumors have gained traction on platforms like Douyin and Toutiao, suggesting possible manipulation of public opinion and unfair competition by these platforms [3]

Core Viewpoint - JD.com and ZhiHuaShi are collaborating to enhance consumer price protection during the 11.11 shopping festival, emphasizing their commitment to providing competitive pricing and safeguarding user rights through a newly established price guarantee fund of 5 million yuan [1][2][4]. Group 1: Price Protection Initiatives - JD.com launched a live broadcast event to reinforce its commitment to low prices and consumer rights during the 11.11 shopping period [1]. - ZhiHuaShi's General Manager announced a joint investment of 5 million yuan to create a "Price Guarantee Fund," ensuring competitive pricing and compensation for price discrepancies found on other platforms [2]. - The initiative aims to build a "price protection wall" for consumers, ensuring they can purchase products at competitive prices on JD.com [3]. Group 2: Industry Impact - The collaboration between JD.com and ZhiHuaShi is seen as a step towards addressing the chaotic promotional policies and pricing confusion prevalent in the e-commerce industry [4]. - This partnership is expected to foster a healthier competitive environment in the e-commerce sector, promoting rational competition and value-based practices [4].

Core Viewpoint - The company firmly opposes unfair price competition from Douyin and aims to provide consumers with better and fairer prices, emphasizing the need for a fair competitive environment in the market [1][2]. Group 1: Response to Market Competition - The company publicly addressed the recent controversy regarding pricing and penalties, specifically the claim of a 5 million yuan fine against Midea, which was later denied by Midea [1]. - The company criticized Douyin and other short video platforms for spreading false information and manipulating public opinion, calling for regulatory scrutiny of such practices [1][2]. Group 2: Commitment to Consumers and Partners - The company aims to offer high-quality and affordable products and services to consumers, standing against Douyin's alleged coercive pricing strategies that require merchants to price higher on the company's platform [2]. - The company emphasizes its principle of sharing profits with brand partners to promote their long-term development and achieve a win-win situation [2].

Core Viewpoint - Recent rumors regarding JD.com involving "choose one of two" practices have surfaced, alleging that JD.com forces merchants to keep prices lower on its platform compared to others during the Double Eleven shopping festival, with significant penalties for violations [1][3] Group 1: Allegations and Responses - JD.com has been accused of imposing hefty fines on brands like Midea for pricing issues, with reports indicating a fine of 5 million yuan [1] - JD.com claims that the rumors are a result of its pricing strategy to ensure competitive pricing on its platform, rather than a "choose one of two" approach [3][4] - JD.com emphasizes that its requirement for merchants to not price higher on other platforms is aimed at protecting consumer interests and maintaining price competitiveness [3][4] Group 2: Legal and Market Implications - Analysts note that the typical definition of "choose one of two" involves platforms abusing market dominance to force exclusive trading, which differs from JD.com's focus on price matching [4] - The dispute highlights a broader competitive struggle in the e-commerce sector, particularly as platforms vie for market share and consumer attention [6] - The ongoing conflict between JD.com and Douyin reflects a significant battle over pricing strategies and market positioning in a saturated online marketplace [6] Group 3: Douyin's Position - Douyin has responded by asserting that JD.com's actions confirm a restriction on merchants' rights to operate freely on other platforms, which they argue constitutes a violation of market competition laws [5] - Douyin expresses a desire for regulatory bodies to investigate the situation to uphold fair market practices and protect merchants' rights [5]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing dispute between JD.com and Douyin highlights the competitive tensions in the e-commerce sector, particularly regarding pricing strategies and market practices during the Double Eleven shopping festival [1][4]. Group 1: JD.com's Position - JD.com is accused of enforcing a "choose one" policy, compelling merchants to maintain lower prices on its platform compared to others, with penalties for non-compliance [1][2]. - The company claims that its pricing strategy aims to ensure competitive pricing for consumers and is not a "choose one" practice, which it argues is a misinterpretation of its policies [2][3]. - JD.com emphasizes that its core requirement is price benchmarking rather than exclusive partnerships, aiming to prevent itself from becoming a "price highland" [3]. Group 2: Douyin's Response - Douyin counters JD.com's claims, asserting that JD.com is indeed restricting merchants' rights to operate on other platforms and using hefty fines as a threat [4]. - Douyin references a previous ruling by the State Administration for Market Regulation, which penalized a platform for similar "choose one" practices, indicating that JD.com's actions may constitute illegal market restrictions [4]. - Douyin expresses a desire for regulatory bodies to investigate the situation to uphold fair market practices and protect merchants' rights [4]. Group 3: Industry Dynamics - The competition between JD.com and Douyin reflects a broader struggle in the e-commerce landscape, where price sensitivity among consumers is increasingly critical [5]. - Analysts suggest that the conflict is not merely a public relations battle but represents a deeper ecological competition for market share and resource control between the two platforms [5]. - JD.com's strategy to limit promotional activities on Douyin is seen as an effort to protect its pricing structure against the rising influence of live-streaming e-commerce [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing tensions between e-commerce platforms, particularly focusing on the allegations against JD.com regarding "choose one from two" practices during the Double Eleven shopping festival, which could potentially harm competition in the market [1][5]. Group 1: Allegations and Responses - JD.com is accused of enforcing a policy that requires merchants to keep prices on other platforms lower than those on JD.com, with reports of significant fines imposed on brands like Midea for price violations [1][4]. - JD.com refutes these allegations, claiming that the rumors stem from its pricing strategy aimed at ensuring competitive pricing for consumers, rather than enforcing exclusivity on merchants [5][6]. - The term "choose one from two" is clarified by industry experts as a misuse in this context, as JD.com's requirements focus on price matching rather than exclusive partnerships [6][9]. Group 2: Competitive Dynamics - The dispute highlights the fierce competition between JD.com and Douyin, with both platforms vying for market share and consumer attention, particularly in the context of price sensitivity among users [8][9]. - Douyin's response emphasizes that JD.com's actions restrict merchants' rights to operate freely on other platforms, which could be seen as a violation of fair market practices [8]. - Analysts suggest that this conflict represents a broader struggle for dominance in a saturated market, where both companies are trying to leverage their supply chain and user engagement strategies [9].

Core Viewpoint - A notice of a 5 million yuan penalty from JD to Midea has circulated since October 28, but JD denies the allegations of "choose one" practices [1] Group 1: Allegations and Responses - JD has acknowledged the rumors of "choose one" practices circulating on platforms like Douyin and Toutiao, stating that Midea has also clarified that the related reports are false [1] - JD's executive Yang Xu indicated that the rumors have gained traction on social media, suggesting that there are signs of manipulation behind the scenes to confuse public perception [1] - JD claims it lacks influence on the Douyin platform, accusing it of using its content platform advantages to manipulate public opinion, which they consider an unfair competitive practice [1]