Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of price constraints imposed by e-commerce platforms on their merchants, particularly in the context of the upcoming "Double Eleven" shopping festival, emphasizing the need for legal compliance and fair treatment of all parties involved in the platform ecosystem [2][8]. Group 1: Price Constraints and Legal Implications - E-commerce platforms, such as JD.com, have reportedly enforced price constraints on brands, requiring them to maintain the lowest prices on their platform compared to other sales channels [2][3]. - This practice has sparked controversy and raises legal questions regarding its classification as "two-choice" behavior, which restricts merchants' ability to sell on other platforms [3][4]. - Platforms with market dominance face severe penalties under China's Anti-Monopoly Law for such practices, with past cases resulting in fines exceeding 18 billion [3][4]. Group 2: Economic and Competitive Concerns - Price constraints can lead to reduced competition and potentially harm consumer welfare by creating a scenario where prices are universally high rather than competitive [7][8]. - The article argues that even platforms without market dominance must adhere to the Electronic Commerce Law, which prohibits unreasonable restrictions on merchants, regardless of the platform's size [7][8]. Group 3: Fair Treatment and Sustainable Development - The article emphasizes the importance of respecting the interests of all parties in the platform ecosystem, including platforms, merchants, and consumers, to ensure sustainable development [1][8]. - The upcoming "Double Eleven" event should not compromise legal and ethical standards, as compliance is essential for maximizing social welfare and maintaining a healthy competitive environment [8].

Core Viewpoint - The issue of "choose one from two" is not about the size of the online platforms but rather about their misuse of "private power" to unjustly restrict the operational freedom of merchants, ultimately harming competition among platforms [3]. Regulatory Actions - The State Administration for Market Regulation issued compliance reminders to major e-commerce platforms regarding the "Double Eleven" shopping festival, emphasizing the need to strictly regulate promotional behaviors and prohibit illegal practices such as "choose one from two" and "big data killing familiarity" [3]. - The revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law highlights the importance of fair competition, with specific provisions against platforms forcing merchants to adhere to pricing rules that disrupt market order [10]. Historical Context - The "choose one from two" practice gained notoriety following Alibaba's record fine of 18.228 billion yuan for abusing its market dominance by imposing such restrictions on merchants since 2015 [5]. - A recent court ruling found Alibaba liable for its monopolistic behavior, ordering it to compensate JD.com 1 billion yuan, reinforcing the principle of fair competition [6]. Market Dynamics - The competitive landscape among internet platforms is intensifying, with the need for fair competition becoming increasingly critical in the context of ongoing regulatory scrutiny [4]. - The "choose one from two" practice creates a "market blockade effect," limiting merchants' ability to engage with other platforms and reducing overall market competition [11]. Legal Framework - The concept of "choose one from two" is linked to various legal provisions, including the Anti-Monopoly Law and the E-Commerce Law, which prohibit unreasonable restrictions on merchants' pricing and operational freedom [8][10]. - The enforcement of these laws aims to correct the power imbalance between platforms and merchants, fostering market vitality and innovation [13]. Future Outlook - The regulatory focus should shift towards ensuring that market competition is not hindered by unfair barriers set by incumbent platforms, thereby promoting a healthier market environment for new entrants [12]. - The ongoing scrutiny of "choose one from two" practices is part of a broader goal to enhance market innovation and development in China's platform economy [13].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions of a major e-commerce platform, which imposed significant fines on merchants for participating in promotional activities on competing platforms, have raised concerns about market competition and the autonomy of merchants [1][2][5]. Group 1: E-commerce Platform Actions - The e-commerce platform has restricted merchants from participating in promotional activities on other platforms, citing the need to maintain "lowest prices" [1]. - A fine of 5 million yuan was reportedly issued to Midea Group for price violations, which was later rescinded after an appeal [3][4]. - The platform's internal representatives claim that these measures are intended to protect consumer interests by ensuring competitive pricing [1]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Perspectives - Industry experts argue that the platform's actions may constitute illegal "choose one" behavior, which restricts market competition [2]. - The concept of "most-favored-nation" clauses is raised, suggesting that requiring merchants to offer the best prices on the platform could be seen as anti-competitive [2]. - The potential for abuse of market position through "minimum price agreements" is highlighted, indicating a need for regulatory scrutiny [2]. Group 3: Industry Reactions and Implications - The cancellation of the fine does not negate the fact that the platform previously penalized merchants for lower prices on competing platforms [5]. - Experts warn that such practices could lead to a "negative-sum game," shrinking the overall market for merchants and the home appliance industry [5]. - In response to concerns about fair competition, several major platforms have signed a self-regulatory agreement to promote healthy competition in the e-commerce sector [5].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing controversy surrounding "choose one" practices has resurfaced during this year's Double Eleven shopping festival, with JD.com being accused of imposing price restrictions on merchants, particularly targeting Midea for alleged price violations [1][2][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - JD.com recently fined Midea 5 million RMB for price violations, claiming that Midea's prices were significantly higher than those on other platforms [4][5]. - Following Midea's appeal, JD.com retracted the fine and lifted the freeze on the funds, but the incident raised questions about JD.com's pricing policies and practices [6][7]. - JD.com has implemented new operational requirements for major brands during Double Eleven, including prohibiting them from offering better deals on competing platforms, which has been interpreted as a form of "choose one" pressure [7][8]. Group 2: Pricing Policies and Merchant Impact - JD.com's new pricing management rules, effective October 16, require merchants to ensure their prices on JD.com are not higher than those on other channels, with severe penalties for violations [9][10]. - Merchants face significant fines for pricing discrepancies, with reports indicating penalties could reach ten times the purchase price for violations [10]. - JD.com employs a "gross profit protection" strategy, ensuring that the platform retains a certain percentage of profits, which can lead to merchants subsidizing JD.com's profits during promotional events like Double Eleven [11][12]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape and Challenges - The competitive landscape for JD.com has intensified, with rival platforms like Tmall and Douyin reporting substantial growth in sales and user engagement during the Double Eleven period [16][18]. - JD.com's sales report for the Double Eleven period lacked key metrics such as GMV and the number of brands achieving significant sales, indicating potential struggles in maintaining market share [17][18]. - The company's reliance on government subsidies has raised concerns about sustainability, as these subsidies may become standard across platforms, limiting JD.com's competitive edge [18][19].

Group 1 - JD.com has initiated its "Double 11 Global Goods Festival" earlier than other major shopping platforms, raising concerns about its practices during this promotional period [4][10] - Allegations have emerged that JD.com is engaging in "choose one" behavior, restricting merchants from participating in promotions on competing platforms, with penalties ranging from millions to tens of millions of yuan for violations [4][7] - Internal sources from JD.com claim that their actions are aimed at "active price comparison" to protect consumers, arguing that the accusations of "choose one" misinterpret their intentions [6][10] Group 2 - The competitive landscape has shifted, with JD.com previously criticizing Alibaba for similar practices, highlighting the cyclical nature of such competitive strategies in the industry [8][9] - JD.com's recent defensive strategies, including the establishment of a "price protection wall," reflect a loss of confidence and a shift from an open ecosystem to a more controlled environment [12][25] - The failure in the food delivery sector has led JD.com to adopt a defensive posture, impacting its approach to the upcoming Double 11 sales event [15][16] Group 3 - JD.com’s core business, particularly in home appliances, is under scrutiny as it attempts to navigate the challenges posed by competitors and changing market dynamics [16][20] - The company's previous advantages in logistics and customer service are diminishing as the industry evolves, leading to a decline in consumer willingness to pay a premium for these services [20][22] - JD.com’s reliance on traditional promotional strategies, such as issuing coupons, indicates a lack of innovation in adapting to new market conditions [22][23] Group 4 - The ongoing conflict with brands over pricing strategies is eroding JD.com's reputation as a trustworthy partner, potentially benefiting competitors who respect merchant autonomy [26][27] - JD.com’s approach of positioning itself as a defender of consumer interests may provide short-term gains but risks long-term damage to its ecosystem [28][29] - The company must undergo a significant transformation to regain its competitive edge, focusing on building trust and enhancing its core value proposition rather than engaging in price wars [31][32]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses JD.com's recent actions and strategies in response to competition, particularly focusing on the "two-choice" or "active price comparison" practices that have drawn criticism and raised questions about the company's market behavior [2][3][4]. Group 1: JD.com's Competitive Strategies - JD.com has initiated its "Double Eleven Global Goods Festival" early this year, but has faced allegations of requiring merchants to refrain from promotional activities on competing platforms like Douyin during this period [3][4]. - The company claims its actions are not "two-choice" but rather "active price comparison," aimed at protecting consumers by creating a price protection wall [3][4][6]. - JD.com previously criticized competitors for similar practices, indicating a shift in its stance as it now employs tactics it once condemned [4][6]. Group 2: Market Position and Challenges - JD.com appears to have lost confidence, reflected in its defensive strategies and the inability to maintain its previous aggressive market position [6][10]. - The failure in the food delivery battle has strained JD.com's resources, leading to a reliance on "active price comparison" as a response to competitive pressures [7][9][10]. - The company is caught between a defensive posture and the need for innovation, which has resulted in mixed signals to the market and partners [7][10]. Group 3: Brand and Consumer Relations - JD.com's approach to managing prices has led to a deterioration of trust with brand partners, shifting the relationship from collaboration to a zero-sum game [22][23]. - The company's strategy of positioning itself as a defender of consumer interests may yield short-term benefits but risks long-term damage to its ecosystem [24][22]. - The erosion of trust could empower competitors like Douyin, which promotes itself as a platform that respects merchants' autonomy [22][23]. Group 4: Future Directions - JD.com needs to shift from a focus on price competition to leveraging its strengths in supply chain and trust-building to create a new value proposition for consumers [27][28]. - A transformation in organizational thinking is necessary, moving from defensive price management to proactive trust-based innovation [28][29]. - The company must undergo significant self-reform to regain its competitive edge and internal confidence, rather than relying on price wars [29][30].

Core Viewpoint - The recent confirmation by Douyin's home appliance head regarding JD.com's "choose one of two" practice has sparked widespread discussion, highlighting the competitive pressures and tactics within the e-commerce industry [1][5]. Group 1: Allegations of "Choose One of Two" - JD.com has been accused of restricting merchants from using Douyin's promotional coupons, effectively forcing them to choose between platforms, which is a clear case of "choose one of two" [5][6]. - Merchants have reported severe penalties for using Douyin's coupons, with fines reaching up to 45 million for multiple infractions, indicating a coercive environment [5][6]. Group 2: Criticism of JD.com's Practices - The irony lies in JD.com previously criticizing similar practices by others, yet now engaging in even more aggressive tactics against merchants [6][7]. - The current approach of imposing high fines and freezing merchant funds to maintain low prices is seen as detrimental to both merchants and consumers, contradicting JD.com's earlier stance on fair competition [6][7]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - Industry experts suggest that instead of penalizing merchants, JD.com should focus on enhancing its services and offering genuine discounts to consumers, rather than relying on coercive measures [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 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].