【导读】信息技术系统服务机构参与不正当竞争，券商可向中证协举报 中国基金报记者 孙越 近日，记者从业内获悉，为落实证监会有关工作要求，中国证券业协会（以下简称中证协） 对信息技术系统服务机构（以下简称服务机构）在证券行业开展或参与不正当竞争建立投 诉、举报线索收集机制。 当前，信息技术系统已成为支撑证券公司运营与创新的核心基础设施。伴随市场快速发展， 部分服务机构在竞争中采取不正当手段，扰乱行业秩序。 中证协在通知中明确指出，在证监会备案的向证券行业提供信息技术系统服务的机构如存在 以下四类行为，证券公司可向协会提交有关线索材料： 一、商业贿赂行为：服务机构采用给予财物等手段，贿赂证券公司的工作人员或其他办理相 关事务的人员，以谋求交易机会或竞争优势的行为。 二、虚假或引人误解的商业宣传行为：服务机构对其产品的性能、功能、质量、销售情况、 用户评价、曾获荣誉等作虚假或者引人误解的商业宣传，欺骗、诱导证券公司或交易者的行 为。 三、利用技术手段实施不正当竞争行为：服务机构利用数据、算法、技术等，影响证券公司 选择或实施妨碍、破坏其他服务机构合法提供产品或服务的行为，包括但不限于诱导、欺 骗、强迫证券公司修改、关 ...

《通知》称，为落实证监会有关工作要求，协会对信息技术系统服务机构（下称"服务机构"）在证券行业开展 或参与不正当竞争建立投诉、举报线索收集机制。 《通知》表示，在证监会备案的向证券行业提供信息技术系统服务的机构如存在以下行为，且证券公司拟向市 场监管部门投诉、举报的，证券公司可向协会提交有关线索材料。 近日，记者获悉，中国证券业协会（下称"协会"）向券商下发了《关于建立信息技术系统服务机构不正当 竞争投诉、举报线索收集机制的通知》（下称《通知》）。 首先是商业贿赂类行为。 服务机构采用给予财物等手段，贿赂证券公司的工作人员或其他办理相关事务的人 员，以谋求交易机会或竞争优势的行为。 其次是虚假或引人误解的商业宣传行为。 服务机构对其产品的性能、功能、质量、销售情况、用户评价、曾 获荣誉等作虚假或者引人误解的商业宣传，欺骗、诱导证券公司或交易者的行为。 再次是利用技术手段实施不正当竞争行为。 服务机构利用数据、算法、技术等，影响证券公司选择或实施妨 碍、破坏其他服务机构合法提供产品或服务的行为，包括但不限于诱导、欺骗、强迫证券公司修改、关闭、卸 载其他服务机构合法提供的产品或服务；恶意不兼容其他服务机构合法提供 ...

线索材料要求方面，证券公司向协会反馈服务机构不正常竞争投诉、举报线索，应提供基本情况表、材 料真实性承诺书和其他有助于说明情况的材料。 《通知》提及，协会建立服务机构不正当竞争投诉、举报线索收集机制，主要用于发现、分析有关风险 线索，反映行业共性问题，不替代证券公司向市场监督管理部门的投诉举报行为。线索提交后，协会对 线索材料进行完备性审查。对于材料不完备或线索问题不清晰的，协会于10个工作日内通知证券公司补 充，证券公司应于10个工作日内提供补充材料。期满材料仍不完备或未提供补充材料的，不予处理。 此外，《通知》表示，协会建立线索信息台账并动态更新，将证券公司报送的线索材料情况定期、不定 期上报证监会科技监管司。对于个性问题，协会指导证券公司按照合同约定与被投诉、举报方协商解 决，或向市场监管部门投诉、举报；对于行业共性问题，且指向性明确、造成较大负面影响的，组织相 关单位以投诉、举报等方式向市场监管部门报告。服务机构不正当竞争行为同时涉及期货、基金行业 的，协会将视情形与期货业协会、基金业协会会商。 线索收集范围方面，《通知》内容指出，在中国证监会备案的向证券行业提供信息技术系统服务的机构 如存在商业贿赂 ...

据悉，协会建立线索信息台账并动态更新，将证券公司报送的线索材料情况定期、不定期上报证监会科 技监管司。对于个性问题，协会指导证券公司按照合同约定与被投诉、举报方协商解决，或向市场监管 部门投诉、举报;对于行业共性问题，且指向性明确、造成较大负面影响的，组织相关单位以投诉、举 报等方式向市场监管部门报告。服务机构不正当竞争行为同时涉及期货、基金行业的，协会将视情形与 期货业协会、基金业协会会商。 在证监会备案的向证券行业提供信息技术系统服务的机构如存在以下行为，且证券公司拟向市场监管部 门投诉、举报的，证券公司可向协会提交有关线索材料。一是商业贿赂类行为；二是虚假或引人误解的 商业宣传行为；三是利用技术手段实施不正当竞争行为；四是扰乱市场秩序的定价行为。 人民财讯12月16日电，近日，记者获悉，中国证券业协会(下称"协会")向券商下发了《关于建立信息技 术系统服务机构不正当竞争投诉、举报线索收集机制的通知》。通知称，为落实证监会有关工作要求， 协会对信息技术系统服务机构(下称"服务机构")在证券行业开展或参与不正当竞争建立投诉、举报线索 收集机制。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of using cheating software for game boosting services, emphasizing that such practices constitute unfair competition and harm the gaming ecosystem [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - The Shanghai-based company, Mihayou, operates the game "Genshin Impact," which has a high download volume across platforms [2]. - A technology company sold 7.6 million game boosting orders, generating over 7 million yuan in sales, positioning itself among the top sellers on an e-commerce platform [2]. - Mihayou's investigation revealed that the technology company used cheating software to enhance game accounts rapidly, leading to account bans due to violations of game rules [2]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court determined that the technology company's actions constituted unfair competition, as they disrupted the normal gaming order and affected Mihayou's expected revenue [3]. - The court ordered the technology company to compensate Mihayou 3 million yuan for economic losses and legal expenses, along with a public apology [3]. Group 3: Legal Commentary - The judge emphasized that using cheating software undermines the innovation and development of the gaming industry, warning against practices that harm the rights of other operators and consumers [4]. - Cheating services often offer low prices, which can disrupt the market and lead to account bans for users, creating tension among fair players [4]. - The judge noted that frequent use of cheating software could negatively impact the profitability of original game developers and hinder the industry's sustainable growth [5].

成为手机软件劫持流量的惯用手段，让消费者不堪其扰。 近日，市场监管总局点名手机"三宗罪"，针对流量截取、强制跳转、恶意设置不兼容等行为，面向相关 企业进行集中提醒与规范引导。 移动互联网时代，小小的一块手机屏幕，早已晋升为流量的主战场。正是在这个战场中，利用算法设计 的引流套路成为许多手机软件劫持用户的基本操作。 比如，被点名的强制跳转，未经用户明确同意，不得擅自更改默认跳转路径。但在现实中，人为更改跳 转路径时有发生，手指点哪未必去哪反倒越来越常见。 市场监管总局披露，这种技术劫持能使广告主获客成本大降，却让用户陷入"鬼打墙"式的浏览体验。 隐私授权默认勾选，弹窗跳过多次才能关闭，手机晃一下就跳转的开屏广告……类似套路 短期利益驱动之下，偷流量的鸡贼操作愈发猖狂。这些幕后操作，并非通过技术赋能、质量提升赢得用 户，而是人为设置技术藩篱，干扰正常的市场秩序，是对市场资源配置效率的极大损耗。 如果手机厂商只会用小算盘，把用户锁定在自我的圈层中，看似是巩固了自己的市场份额，实际上可能 失去更大的市场。 没有开放的生态，没有自由的竞争，任何一款产品都不会走太远。只停留在自家的一亩三分地，抑制潜 在竞争者的进入，互设 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent compliance guidance issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) in China, focusing on unfair competition in the mobile phone and application platform industry, highlighting the shift from post-event punishment to preemptive regulation [3][4][9]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - SAMR has identified irrational competition as a significant issue in the mobile phone industry, urging operators to enhance their awareness of responsibilities and comply with the new anti-unfair competition law [3][4]. - The guidance emphasizes the need for companies to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and establish robust internal compliance management systems to maintain a fair market environment [4][9]. Group 2: Unfair Competition Practices - Certain companies are accused of employing unfair competition tactics such as traffic hijacking, forced redirection, and malicious incompatibility, which harm the rights of other operators and consumers [4][9]. - The article highlights that mobile manufacturers often obstruct users from installing applications from third-party platforms, creating significant barriers that discourage users from proceeding with installations [6][7]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The article notes a trend where game developers are increasingly withdrawing from mobile channels due to high costs associated with these platforms, opting instead for direct downloads to avoid restrictions imposed by phone manufacturers [12][15]. - The shift in strategy among game developers reflects a growing confidence in their products, allowing them to bypass traditional app stores and attract users through quality offerings [15][16]. Group 4: Compliance and Fair Competition - Legal experts suggest that while not all restrictions are illegal, any actions that unfairly favor a company's own applications over competitors' could be seen as self-preferential and abusive [10][16]. - The article calls for regulatory measures that consider the unique technological characteristics and business logic of the mobile industry, advocating for differentiated compliance standards based on company size and circumstances [16].

Core Viewpoint - The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has identified improper competition behaviors in the mobile phone and application platform industry, including traffic hijacking, forced redirection, and malicious incompatibility, which harm the legitimate rights of other operators and consumers, disrupting fair market competition [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - SAMR has conducted compliance guidance in Shenzhen, focusing on the mobile phone industry and highlighting the need for operators to enhance their awareness of responsibilities and comply with the new anti-unfair competition law [1][2]. - The recent compliance guidance reflects a shift from "post-event punishment" to "prevention" in regulatory practices, aiming to clarify the boundaries between technological neutrality and legal compliance [1][7]. Group 2: Industry Practices - Some mobile phone manufacturers are reportedly blocking third-party application installations, creating significant barriers for users attempting to download apps from non-native app stores, which includes multiple system prompts and permission changes [4][5]. - The practice of traffic hijacking is evident when users try to download non-native apps, facing numerous warnings that often lead them to abandon the installation process [5][7]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The mobile application ecosystem has evolved, with third-party app stores becoming significant traffic entry points, leading some internet companies to sever ties with mobile manufacturers to avoid restrictions [8][10]. - A report indicates that major advertising platforms have become primary channels for game advertising, as strong game developers choose to withdraw from mobile channels [8][10]. Group 4: Legal Implications - Actions by mobile manufacturers to unilaterally remove specific games or obstruct third-party applications may constitute unfair competition or even monopolistic behavior under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Anti-Monopoly Law [7][11]. - Reasonable reviews based on legal, system security, or privacy protection needs are considered legitimate, provided they are transparent and fair, while discriminatory practices against competitors may lead to regulatory scrutiny [7][11].

Core Viewpoint - A Spanish court has ruled that Meta must pay €479 million (approximately $552 million) to Spanish digital media organizations due to unfair competition and violations of EU data protection regulations [1] Group 1: Legal and Financial Implications - The compensation will be distributed to 87 digital news publishers and agencies, linked to Meta's use of personal data for targeted advertising on Facebook and Instagram [1] - The court found that Meta gained a "significant competitive advantage" in the Spanish online advertising market through illegal processing of user data [1] - The judge estimated that Meta earned at least €5.3 billion from advertising during the five-year period in question, which is considered as profits obtained in violation of GDPR [1] Group 2: Regulatory Context - The lawsuit focuses on Meta's change in the legal basis for processing personal data from "user consent" to "necessary for the performance of a contract" when GDPR came into effect in May 2018, which was later deemed insufficient by regulators [1] - In August 2023, Meta reverted to using "user consent" as its legal basis for data processing [1] - The Spanish government is also investigating Meta for alleged privacy violations, with the Prime Minister stating that a parliamentary committee will look into Meta's use of hidden mechanisms to track Android device users [2] Group 3: Broader European Context - This ruling is part of a series of fines Meta faces in Europe, including a nearly €800 million fine from the European Commission for bundling its online classified ad service with its social network [2]

Group 1 - The court in Hangzhou ruled against a platform that engaged in unfair competition by reselling Haidilao discount coupons through unauthorized means, including "order payment" methods [2][4] - The court ordered the infringing store to cease its activities and pay Haidilao 300,000 yuan in economic damages [4] - Haidilao has been actively addressing issues related to the unauthorized sale of discount coupons, emphasizing consumer protection and the enforcement of legal actions against such practices [6] Group 2 - There have been numerous reports of consumers being defrauded when purchasing discount coupons from third-party channels, leading to financial losses [6] - In May 2024, Haidilao issued a statement to combat illegal profit-making activities, including the unauthorized rental or sale of membership rights, and outlined measures such as account freezing and legal accountability [6]