一财社论：明确恶性竞争的界定 促进市场公平竞争

Core Viewpoint - The National Market Regulation Administration has addressed the recent subsidy disputes among food delivery platforms, emphasizing the need for compliance with laws and regulations to prevent unfair competition and promote orderly industry development [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The National Market Regulation Administration has conducted discussions with major food delivery platforms, which have collectively committed to adhering to legal standards and avoiding malicious subsidies [1]. - The administration will closely monitor competition in the food delivery sector, requiring platforms to enhance service quality, ensure food safety, and manage subsidies to protect the normal pricing system [1][4]. Group 2: Competition Dynamics - There are mixed opinions regarding the subsidy wars; some view it as normal competition, while others see it as disruptive, leading to below-cost pricing and unfair competition [1][2]. - The ongoing subsidy wars have shown clear signs of malicious competition, characterized by significant price competition initiated by a few companies, which can lead to long-term low or negative profit margins across the industry [3]. Group 3: Legal Framework - The definition of "malicious" competition is crucial, with laws such as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law prohibiting platforms from forcing sellers to price below cost, which disrupts market order [4]. - Recent regulatory documents have established guidelines to prevent below-cost pricing and ensure fair competition, including the prohibition of "below cost + exclusion of competitors" practices [4]. Group 4: Industry Impact - The industrial and information sectors are particularly vulnerable to irrational competition, which can destroy companies and industries rapidly, highlighting the need for regulatory oversight [5].