Core Viewpoint - The transition from "commission" to "cut" reflects a shift in the perception of intermediary services in the digital economy, where platforms have become essential facilitators of transactions, leading to a change in how fees are viewed and understood [4][5][9]. Group 1: Role of Intermediaries - Intermediaries provide essential services such as information matching, verification of transaction details, and process facilitation, which justify the fees paid by both parties involved in a transaction [3][4]. - The existence of intermediaries helps reduce transaction costs and improve efficiency, making the payment of fees reasonable in the context of real estate transactions [3][4]. Group 2: Evolution of Fees - In the digital age, intermediaries have evolved into platforms that connect supply and demand, leading to a more complex fee structure that often obscures the specific services provided [4][7]. - The term "cut" has emerged as a more colloquial and negative connotation compared to "commission," reflecting a perception of exploitation and lack of transparency in platform fees [6][9]. Group 3: Regulatory Context - Recent regulatory documents have begun to recognize and differentiate between "commission" and "cut," indicating a formal acknowledgment of the changing landscape of platform fees [8][9]. - The inclusion of "cut" in regulatory guidelines suggests a shift in how platform fees are categorized and understood within the broader economic framework [8][9]. Group 4: Market Dynamics - The decline in growth rates in relevant sectors has heightened sensitivity to fees, making the transition from "commission" to "cut" more pronounced as stakeholders become more aware of their expenditures [10]. - Platforms face market constraints that can limit their ability to impose high fees, as excessive cuts may drive merchants to seek alternatives, thereby impacting platform revenues [9][10].

Core Points - The newly revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China officially takes effect on October 15, addressing new issues in market competition, particularly "involution" competition, overdue payments to small and medium-sized enterprises, and platform economy irregularities [1] - The law emphasizes the need for platform operators to comply with regulations and guide their internal operators to engage in fair competition, with specific measures for addressing unfair competition behaviors [1][2] Group 1 - The revision of the law aims to respond to new situations and problems in anti-unfair competition work, reflecting the central government's directives on addressing "involution" competition and overdue payments to SMEs [1] - The law includes clear provisions against new forms of unfair competition in the platform economy, such as keyword manipulation, data rights infringement, false transactions, and malicious returns [1] - Platform operators are required to take necessary actions against unfair competition behaviors within their platforms and report to regulatory authorities [1] Group 2 - Market regulators will enforce the new law rigorously, targeting various forms of unfair competition and illegal activities that disrupt fair competition, thereby protecting consumer rights and fostering a fair market environment [2] - Operators are reminded to adhere to competition rules and continuously review their business practices against legal standards to ensure fair participation in the market [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issues faced by merchants in the platform economy, including forced subsidies, unreasonable rules, and the impact on industry health and merchant rights [1][2][3] Merchant Complaints - Merchants report being forced to participate in subsidy programs without prior notice, leading to financial losses [2][3] - Specific examples include merchants being required to subsidize customer discounts, sometimes below cost, which can lead to a decline in product quality [2][3] - Instances of merchants being unknowingly enrolled in promotional activities have been documented, raising concerns about transparency [2][3] Platform Practices - Some platforms are accused of coercing merchants into exclusive agreements, limiting their ability to operate on multiple platforms, which may violate antitrust laws [3][4] - The presence of intermediaries and aggressive sales tactics by platform representatives can lead to unfair practices against merchants [4][5] Industry Regulations - Regulatory bodies have previously penalized platforms for monopolistic behaviors, yet issues persist, indicating a need for stricter enforcement [3][10] - Recent regulatory changes aim to prevent platforms from forcing merchants to sell below cost and to ensure fair competition [10][11] Flow Anxiety and Cost Pressures - Merchants experience "flow anxiety," feeling pressured to invest heavily in advertising and promotions to remain competitive, which can detract from product quality [7][9] - The reliance on paid promotions creates a cycle of increasing costs without guaranteed returns, leading to a detrimental impact on smaller merchants [7][9] Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest that platforms need to enhance rules and innovate regulations to create a healthier market environment for merchants [9][11] - Proposed measures include establishing better communication channels between platforms and merchants, as well as creating a fairer system for managing promotional activities [11]

Core Viewpoint - The platform economy, as a vital part of the digital economy, is facing challenges where merchants report unfair practices by platforms, such as forced subsidies and unreasonable rules, which harm both merchant interests and industry health [1][2]. Merchant Complaints - Merchants have reported being forced into subsidy programs without prior notice, leading to situations where they must provide discounts that reduce their profits below cost [2][3]. - Specific examples include a merchant who discovered he was unknowingly participating in a subsidy program, resulting in significant financial losses [2]. - Another merchant faced pressure to choose between platforms, indicating a "choose one" scenario that could violate antitrust laws [4]. Regulatory Environment - The National Market Regulatory Administration has been drafting guidelines to address these issues, with a focus on fair practices in the food delivery sector [4][10]. - Previous actions against platforms for monopolistic behavior highlight ongoing regulatory scrutiny, with calls for compliance with e-commerce laws [10]. Industry Practices - Some platforms employ tactics that indirectly force merchants into unfavorable agreements, such as requiring exclusive contracts that limit competition [4][5]. - The existence of "price adjustment assistants" on platforms allows for unilateral changes to merchant pricing without consent, raising concerns about transparency and fairness [5][10]. Flow Anxiety and Competition - Merchants experience "flow anxiety," feeling pressured to invest heavily in advertising and promotions to remain competitive, which can lead to reduced product quality [7][8]. - The competitive landscape is skewed, where larger merchants can outspend smaller ones on advertising, creating an uneven playing field [8][9]. Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest that platforms need to enhance rules and innovate regulations to create a healthier market environment, focusing on fair treatment of merchants [9][10]. - Proposed measures include establishing mechanisms for merchant representation and feedback, as well as creating a more transparent system for flow distribution [12].

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has adjusted the jurisdiction of internet courts regarding foreign-related cases involving Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, effective from November 1 [1][2] - The new regulations include various types of internet-related disputes such as data ownership, personal information protection, virtual property rights, and unfair competition [1][2] - The adjustments aim to enhance the legal framework for data-related disputes and regulate new forms of unfair competition in the digital economy [1] Summary by Category Jurisdiction Changes - The jurisdiction of internet courts will now cover disputes related to network data rights, personal information protection, virtual property rights, and unfair competition, which were previously under the jurisdiction of grassroots courts [1][2] - Cases that should be handled by grassroots courts in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou will now be concentrated in three internet courts [1] Legal Framework and Governance - The new regulations are designed to establish a more comprehensive legal framework for data-related disputes and to address issues such as data scraping, traffic hijacking, and platform competition [1] - The adjustments are expected to contribute to the development of a global governance system for the internet and promote a community of shared future in cyberspace [2] Removal of Certain Cases - Some cases have been removed from the jurisdiction of internet courts, including disputes over copyright ownership and infringement related to works published online [2]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China announced new regulations regarding the jurisdiction of internet courts, effective from November 1, 2025, which expands the types of cases these courts can handle [1][2] Group 1: Expanded Jurisdiction - The new regulations include jurisdiction over cases related to "network data ownership, infringement, and contract disputes," "protection of personal information and privacy rights," "virtual property ownership, infringement, and contract disputes," and "unfair competition disputes in the network" [1] - The concentration of jurisdiction for these new types of cases in internet courts is expected to improve the adjudication rules for data-related disputes and regulate new forms of unfair competition, such as data scraping and platform coercion [1] Group 2: Adjusted Jurisdiction - Certain cases have been removed from the jurisdiction of internet courts, including financial loan contract disputes and copyright disputes that are entirely conducted online [2] - Following the implementation of the new regulations, these cases will be handled by relevant grassroots courts based on territorial and designated jurisdiction standards in cities like Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou [2]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has issued new regulations for internet courts, centralizing jurisdiction over four types of internet-related cases starting from November 1, 2025 [1][2] - The new regulations expand the jurisdiction of internet courts to include cases related to data ownership, personal information protection, virtual property, and unfair competition [2][4] - Traditional internet-related cases have been removed from the jurisdiction of internet courts, which will now focus on new and complex cases [3][4] Summary by Sections Changes Compared to Previous Regulations - The new regulations add four categories of cases to the jurisdiction of internet courts, including data ownership disputes and personal information protection [2] - Previously, internet courts handled eleven types of disputes, but the new rules streamline the focus to more complex and emerging issues [2][3] Professional Capacity of Internet Courts - Internet courts have developed specialized judicial capabilities to handle new types of internet cases, having previously dealt with significant cases like the first national big data product ownership case [4] - The courts have a team of judges experienced in both law and technology, ensuring effective handling of disputes involving data and algorithms [4] Long-term Considerations - The concentration of jurisdiction in major digital economy hubs like Beijing, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou allows for a more effective response to cutting-edge legal issues [5] - The new regulations aim to clarify legal standards and unify the application of laws across different courts, addressing inconsistencies in the treatment of data-related disputes [5][6] - The adjustments are expected to enhance judicial protection of personal information and virtual property, while also regulating new forms of unfair competition in the digital space [6]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has announced new regulations for internet courts, which will now concentrate jurisdiction over four new types of internet-related cases starting from November 1, 2025 [1][3][5] - The new types of cases include disputes over network data ownership, infringement, contract disputes, personal information protection, virtual property rights, and unfair competition [3][4][6] Summary by Category Jurisdiction Changes - The new regulations expand the jurisdiction of internet courts to include four new categories of cases, enhancing the legal framework for digital economy disputes [2][3] - Traditional internet-related cases such as financial loan disputes and copyright issues will be removed from the jurisdiction of internet courts, shifting them to local courts [5][6] Legal Framework and Efficiency - The adjustments aim to clarify legal standards and unify the application of laws in new and complex digital economy cases, addressing inconsistencies in judicial practices [3][4] - The concentration of cases in internet courts is expected to improve the quality of judgments and enhance the protection of personal information and virtual property rights [4][6] Impact on Digital Economy - The new regulations are designed to balance data rights protection with the efficiency of data transactions, promoting a healthy data market [4] - The measures will also help regulate new forms of unfair competition in the digital space, such as data scraping and algorithm manipulation, thereby supporting the orderly development of the digital economy [4][6]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of "involution" in the platform economy, where extreme price competition leads to short-term consumer benefits but long-term harm to industry development and quality [1][5][7]. Group 1: Involution in Platform Economy - The practice of extreme price competition, such as deep discounts and refunds, is a manifestation of "involution" in the platform economy, which sacrifices industry development for short-term consumer gains [1][5]. - The revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law prohibits platform operators from forcing sellers to sell below cost, signaling a shift towards rational competition in the platform economy [1][7]. - The lack of differentiation among platform businesses has led to homogeneous competition, with some companies resorting to price wars to gain market share, which ultimately harms the industry [7][8]. Group 2: Impact on Businesses - Businesses like restaurants and sock manufacturers are experiencing increased sales but declining profit margins due to high delivery costs and platform subsidies that they must partially absorb [2][3][4]. - The implementation of "only refund" rules by e-commerce platforms has added pressure on businesses, as some consumers exploit these rules, leading to increased operational costs [3][4]. - The quality of products is often compromised as businesses engage in price wars, resulting in a cycle of low prices and low quality that is difficult to escape [5][6]. Group 3: Regulatory Responses - Recent policies aim to regulate pricing behavior and promote transparency in the platform economy, including guidelines for platform fees and pricing competition [7][8]. - Major platforms like Meituan and Taobao are taking steps to support small businesses, such as providing financial assistance and improving complaint mechanisms to alleviate the burden of price competition [9][10]. - The government has initiated discussions with major platforms to encourage rational competition and reduce harmful promotional practices [8][9]. Group 4: Consumer Role - Consumers are encouraged to adopt a more rational consumption attitude, avoiding excessive focus on low prices and supporting high-quality businesses [9][10]. - The shift in consumer behavior is seen as a crucial factor in breaking the cycle of involution, as informed choices can help elevate the market for quality products and services [9][10].

Core Insights - Industrial innovation is crucial for transforming technological advancements into productive forces, requiring the integration of new technologies, product development, and exploration of new organizational models [1] - The digital economy, supported by digital technologies and scenarios, has become a new engine for economic development in China, providing new sources of technology and supply for industrial innovation [1] Group 1: Digital Technology and Industry Transformation - Digital technology serves as a universal enabling technology that can create new industries, upgrade existing ones, and innovate development models [2] - Technologies such as big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence support the emergence of new industries and enhance existing industries through digital transformation [2] - The interaction between digital technology and industries creates a virtuous cycle, where new industries demand higher performance from digital technologies, leading to further advancements [2] Group 2: Digital Scenarios and Economic Development - Digital scenarios, defined as production and living environments constructed through digital technologies, enhance economic development by promoting industrial innovation [3] - These scenarios create opportunities for new technology applications, accelerate product creation and iteration, and drive changes in organizational and operational models [3] - The integration of various technologies within digital scenarios fosters the rapid growth of industries such as the metaverse, which combines multiple technologies into a new system [3] Group 3: Strategic Opportunities and Challenges - To harness the new opportunities presented by technological revolutions and industrial transformations, it is essential to focus on leading advantages in digital technologies and core areas [4] - Emphasis should be placed on breakthroughs in strategic fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum information, and advanced computing to establish a competitive edge [4] - The establishment of a collaborative regional advantage and the development of digital infrastructure are critical for reducing marginal costs and enhancing innovation diffusion [4] Group 4: Enhancing Digital Scenario Ecosystem - Improving the digital scenario ecosystem is vital for enhancing development efficiency by integrating various cutting-edge technologies across multiple industries [5] - The creation of "super scenarios" that transcend single technologies or industries can be achieved by leveraging high-density application scenarios like smart cities and industrial internet [5] - Establishing a standardized system driven by application scenarios and prioritizing the construction of key infrastructure will support industrial development [5][6]