Core Points - The European Union has accepted Microsoft's proposed solution to end the investigation into the alleged illegal bundling of the Teams video conferencing application, allowing Microsoft to avoid a significant antitrust fine [1] - Microsoft has committed to unbundling Teams from its popular Office suite, addressing competition concerns raised by the EU [1] - The EU previously warned Microsoft that its behavior since 2019 had given Teams an unfair advantage over competitors [1] Summary by Sections - **Regulatory Outcome** - The EU's acceptance of Microsoft's solution marks the conclusion of the investigation into the company's practices [1] - Microsoft will now sell Teams separately from Office 365 and Microsoft 365 [1] - **Commitments Made by Microsoft** - Microsoft has agreed to charge lower fees for the Office suite that does not include Teams [1] - The company will also improve interoperability for competing software using Microsoft services [1] - **Statements from Microsoft** - Nanna-Louise Linde, Microsoft's Vice President of European Government Affairs, expressed gratitude for the dialogue with the EU Commission that led to the agreement [1] - Microsoft plans to implement these new obligations immediately and comprehensively [1]

Core Viewpoint - Microsoft successfully avoided a significant antitrust fine by the EU, which accepted its commitments to resolve the investigation regarding the alleged illegal bundling of the Teams video conferencing application [1] Group 1: Regulatory Developments - The EU regulatory authorities stated that Microsoft's commitment to unbundle Teams from its Office suite has alleviated their competition concerns [1] - A market test indicated that competitors and customers did not raise serious objections to Microsoft's proposed changes [1] Group 2: Implications - This decision is expected to ease tensions between the US and EU, especially following criticisms from Trump regarding the EU's stance on Silicon Valley [1]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China released five typical antitrust cases during the Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, highlighting significant legal issues related to monopolistic behaviors in various industries [1] Group 1: Antitrust Cases - The five cases involve abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition, price-fixing, and market division through horizontal monopolistic practices [1] - The cases also address monopolistic behaviors organized by industry associations among operators within the same industry [1] Group 2: Affected Industries - The highlighted cases cover essential sectors such as transportation, building materials, raw pharmaceuticals, and chemicals, which are crucial for public welfare [1]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the need to strengthen antitrust measures and promote fair competition policies as an inherent requirement for improving the socialist market economy system [1] - During the 2025 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, the Supreme People's Court released five typical antitrust cases to clarify and standardize the rules for antitrust adjudication, providing clearer behavioral guidelines for various enterprises [2][4] - The Supreme People's Court's ruling against exclusive operating rights granted to a specific company in the shared electric bike sector highlights the violation of antitrust laws and the importance of maintaining fair competition [3][4] Group 2 - The case regarding the cement association's horizontal monopoly agreement illustrates the potential for industry associations to engage in monopolistic behavior, prompting the need for clear boundaries in their operations [5][6] - The Supreme People's Court's decision in the cement association case reinforces the prohibition of industry associations from facilitating monopolistic agreements among their members [6] - The ruling clarifies that industry associations must operate within legal frameworks and cannot manipulate prices or undermine fair competition [6] Group 3 - A significant ruling addressed the rights of victims of horizontal monopolistic agreements, establishing that damages can be claimed even when contracts were signed during the period of monopolistic behavior [7][8] - The court determined that the price increases during the contract period were a result of the monopolistic agreement, allowing for the presumption of damages suffered by the victim [8] - The ruling also clarified the burden of proof regarding claims of price increases due to non-monopolistic factors, placing the onus on the monopolistic entity to provide evidence [8]

Group 1 - On September 10, the State Council approved the establishment of the Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve [2] - The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and five other departments announced a three-month special rectification action in the automotive industry to address online chaos [2] - The State Administration for Market Regulation released national standards for individual business credit evaluation to facilitate credit financing for individual businesses [2] Group 2 - The Financial Regulatory Administration held a meeting to reinforce the implementation of the Central Eight Regulations and promote a culture of compliance within the financial system [3] - The Financial Regulatory Administration, the People's Bank of China, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission will jointly conduct a financial education campaign from September 15 to 21, 2025 [3] - On September 10, new futures and options for various commodities were launched on the Shanghai Futures Exchange, increasing the total number of domestic commodity futures options to 136 [3] Group 3 - Prudential Insurance Asset Management Company received approval from the Financial Regulatory Administration to commence operations, marking a significant step in the opening of China's insurance asset management industry to foreign investment [4]

(责编：牛镛、岳弘彬) "共享电单车"滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争案是最高法首例认定滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的案件。 互联网租赁自行车服务提供商青某公司，以某行政审批局、某市大数据中心在该市违法设定并实施共享 电单车特许经营，构成滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争为由，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销被诉具体行政行 为。最高法二审认为，某行政审批局在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，缺乏法律依据，超越职权 范围，且在案证据不足以证明撤销被诉行为会损害国家利益和社会公共利益，判决撤销被诉行政行为。 《 人民日报 》（ 2025年09月11日 13 版） 本报北京9月10日电 （记者魏哲哲）最高人民法院10日发布5件反垄断典型案例，涉及滥用行政权力排 除、限制竞争行为，固定商品价格及分割销售市场的横向垄断行为以及行业协会组织本行业的经营者从 事垄断行为等重要法律问题，涵盖交通、建材、原料药、化工等民生行业。 ...

最高人民法院10日发布5件反垄断典型案例，涉及滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为，固定商品价格及 分割销售市场的横向垄断行为以及行业协会组织本行业的经营者从事垄断行为等重要法律问题，涵盖交 通、建材、原料药、化工等民生行业。 "共享电单车"滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争案是最高法首例认定滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的案件。 互联网租赁自行车服务提供商青某公司，以某行政审批局、某市大数据中心在该市违法设定并实施共享 电单车特许经营，构成滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争为由，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销被诉具体行政行 为。最高法二审认为，某行政审批局在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，缺乏法律依据，超越职权 范围，且在案证据不足以证明撤销被诉行为会损害国家利益和社会公共利益，判决撤销被诉行政行为。 （文章来源：人民日报） ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released five typical antitrust cases that address significant legal issues related to the abuse of administrative power, horizontal monopolistic behaviors, and the role of industry associations in monopolistic practices, impacting essential sectors such as transportation, building materials, raw pharmaceuticals, and chemicals [1] Group 1 - The cases directly affect the daily lives of citizens, influencing costs related to transportation, medication, and housing [1] - The court's actions aim to firmly curb monopolistic behaviors and provide compensation to affected businesses, thereby safeguarding market fairness and protecting the interests of the public [1] - The cases reflect an improvement in the court's adjudication standards, offering clear guidance for regulating market competition behaviors [1] Group 2 - The "Cement Association Horizontal Monopoly Agreement" case clarifies the recognition standards for monopolistic behaviors conducted by industry associations, delineating the boundaries of such associations' actions [1] - The "Formaldehyde Sales Market" horizontal monopoly agreement case establishes standards for identifying and implementing horizontal monopoly agreements, aiding courts in accurately recognizing such behaviors to maintain fair market competition [1]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China released five typical antitrust cases, including the first case recognizing the abuse of administrative power to eliminate and restrict competition in the "shared electric bike" sector [1] - The court's decision aims to clarify the standards for recognizing the abuse of administrative power and to promote market access, enhancing market vitality [1] - The cases also cover horizontal monopoly behaviors such as fixed pricing and market division, affecting industries like construction materials, raw pharmaceuticals, and chemicals [1] Group 1 - The "shared electric bike" case involved a company in Hangzhou that challenged the illegal establishment of a franchise for shared electric bikes by local administrative bodies, leading to the annulment of the specific administrative actions [1] - The horizontal monopoly agreement case involving concrete companies established rules for estimating damages and calculating losses, easing the burden of proof for plaintiffs in such disputes [1] - The cases reflect the judicial review of local antitrust enforcement decisions, ensuring the legality and fairness of enforcement procedures [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China released five typical antitrust cases during the Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, highlighting the importance of judicial rulings in maintaining market fairness and protecting consumer interests [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Cases Overview - The five cases involve significant legal issues such as the abuse of administrative power to eliminate competition, price-fixing, market division, and monopolistic behaviors by industry associations, covering essential sectors like transportation, building materials, raw pharmaceuticals, and chemicals [1]. - The cases directly impact daily life, addressing concerns related to transportation costs, medication expenses, and housing costs, thereby reflecting the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding public interests and ensuring fair market competition [1]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Standards - The cases contribute to a refined regulatory framework, providing clear guidelines for identifying monopolistic behaviors, particularly in industry associations, and establishing boundaries for their operations [2]. - Specific rulings clarify the standards for recognizing horizontal monopoly agreements and the calculation of damages for victims, easing the burden of proof for plaintiffs in such disputes [2]. Group 3: Collaboration Between Judicial and Administrative Enforcement - The interaction between antitrust judicial rulings and administrative enforcement is emphasized, showcasing the judiciary's role in supervising and supporting administrative decisions to ensure legality and fairness in enforcement processes [2]. - Both judicial and administrative efforts aim to standardize market competition behaviors and promote the construction of a unified national market [2].