Core Viewpoint - The case involving Taobao and Tmall against Wang Mouming and his companies marks a significant legal precedent in regulating the use of "搬家软件" (migration software) for data scraping in the e-commerce sector, clarifying the boundaries of data rights and competition in the digital economy [1][4][6]. Group 1: Case Background - Wang Mouming's companies developed paid "搬家软件" that allowed users to bypass Taobao and Tmall's verification mechanisms to scrape large amounts of data, creating a complete chain of data theft and parasitic business operations [2][3]. - The software enabled users to set up "无货源店铺" (no-stock stores) on other e-commerce platforms, leveraging data from Taobao and Tmall without authorization [2][3]. Group 2: Court Findings - The court determined that Taobao and Tmall's product data is not a public resource but a legally protected asset developed through significant investment in technology and operations [4][5]. - The court ruled that the actions of Wang Mouming's companies constituted unfair competition by circumventing platform protections and infringing on the platforms' data control rights [5][6]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The ruling emphasized that publicly available data does not equate to public or shared data, and any improper acquisition of such data should be regulated [6][7]. - The court ordered Wang Mouming and his companies to pay 5 million yuan in damages to Taobao and Tmall, highlighting the legal consequences of data theft in the e-commerce industry [5].

【#软件公司一键盗图搬运做无本买卖# #软件公司一键盗图抄店被判赔500万#】此前，江苏两家软件有 限公司开发了"一键搬家" 与 "一键代发"软件，通过爬虫技术，将平台上的海量商品数据，包括商品图 片、规格参数、价格详情等，完整 "搬运" 至其他电商平台，借此开设"无货源店铺"。两原告将这两家 软件公司告上法庭，要求他们赔礼道歉、消除影响，并赔偿经济损失2000万元。法院指出，该行为不仅 增加原平台成本、分流其市场关注，更扰乱市场秩序，属于非法侵夺他人竞争优势。最终，法院认定两 被告行为构成不正当竞争，判决赔偿原告经济损失500万。两被告不服，向省高院提起了上诉，最终维 持原判。@南京零距离 特别声明：以上文章内容仅代表作者本人观点，不代表新浪网观点或立场。如有关于作品内容、版权或其它问 题请于作品发表后的30日内与新浪网联系。 软件公司盗图搬运被判赔500万 软件公司盗图搬运被判赔500万 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released its first specialized guiding cases on data rights protection, addressing societal concerns regarding data ownership, utilization of data products, personal information protection, and the delivery of online platform accounts [1][8]. Group 1: Data Rights and Legal Cases - The number of data-related cases in courts has significantly increased, with the number of first-instance cases in 2024 being double that of 2021 [1]. - The guiding cases aim to unify the adjudication standards for similar cases, reflecting the complexity and legal challenges associated with data-related disputes [1][8]. Group 2: Personal Information Protection - A case involving an APP operator was highlighted, where the operator was found to have excessively collected personal information without consent, leading to a ruling in favor of the plaintiff [2]. - The court ruled that the APP's requirement for users to provide extensive personal information without an option to skip or refuse constituted an infringement of personal information rights [2]. Group 3: Data Utilization and Business Competition - The court confirmed that data processing entities have the right to utilize data they lawfully collect, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other businesses [8]. - A case of unfair competition was noted, where one APP operator was found to have copied a significant number of short videos from another operator, leading to a ruling against the infringing party [6]. Group 4: Regulatory Framework and Future Implications - The guiding cases are part of the implementation of the "Data Twenty Articles," which aim to establish a foundational system for data rights and promote the lawful and effective use of data [8]. - The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protecting data processors' rights to ensure the free flow of data and support the healthy development of the digital economy [9].

Core Viewpoint - Usmile, a well-known oral care brand, has been fined 250,000 yuan for spreading misleading information that disparaged its competitor, Laifen Technology, in violation of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law [1][2][3]. Company Overview - Usmile was founded in 2016 and initially focused on electric toothbrushes, later expanding its product line to include water flossers, toothpaste, and brush heads [4]. - Laifen Technology, established in 2019, initially developed hair dryers and only entered the electric toothbrush market in October 2023. The company also offers shavers and other products [6]. Financial Performance - Laifen Technology reported revenues of 130 million yuan in 2021 and 1.567 billion yuan in 2022. However, it is projected to incur a net loss of 80 million yuan for its toothbrush product line in 2024 [6]. - Usmile electric toothbrushes are priced between 399 and 798 yuan, while Laifen's electric toothbrushes range from 377 to 768 yuan [6]. Regulatory Action - The Guangzhou Tianhe District Market Supervision Administration determined that Usmile's actions constituted commercial defamation, leading to a fine of 250,000 yuan on July 28 [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The Jilin Provincial Market Supervision Administration is actively conducting the "Guarding Consumption" and "Thunder 2025" enforcement actions to address violations related to consumer safety and rights protection, focusing on key products and industries. Group 1: Enforcement Actions - The Longcheng District Market Supervision Bureau in Changchun investigated a clothing studio for selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in the confiscation of infringing products and a fine [2] - The Nanguan District Market Supervision Bureau in Changchun also took action against a clothing store for selling goods that violated trademark rights, leading to similar penalties [3] - The Longtan District Market Supervision Bureau in Jilin City found a liquor store selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in confiscation and fines [4] - The Lishu County Market Supervision Bureau investigated an electric bicycle shop for selling products that did not meet national standards, leading to penalties [5] - The Yalu River City Market Supervision Bureau found a company using misleading packaging and branding that closely resembled a well-known brand, resulting in penalties for unfair competition [6][7] - The Baishan City Market Supervision Bureau penalized a trading company for false advertising regarding health benefits of a product, which was found to be a regular food item [8] - The Songyuan City Market Supervision Bureau penalized an electric bicycle shop for selling non-compliant products, including discrepancies in vehicle coding [9] - The Meihekou City Market Supervision Bureau investigated an automotive maintenance center for selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in confiscation and fines [10] Group 2: Future Actions - The provincial market supervision departments will continue to conduct special enforcement actions against various illegal activities in the consumer sector, maintaining a high-pressure stance to protect consumer and business rights [10]

Core Viewpoint - The automotive industry is facing issues of integrity and transparency, with some brands resorting to misleading marketing tactics such as fabricating order numbers to create a false sense of demand [1][2][4]. Group 1: Industry Practices - Some advertising companies are preparing "small orders over ten thousand" strategies months before product launches, which violates industry ethics and possibly legal regulations [1]. - The phenomenon of announcing over ten thousand orders shortly after the pre-order phase is prevalent across both mainstream and high-end electric vehicle markets, indicating a lack of confidence among brands in their products [2][4]. - The cost of fabricating small order numbers is low compared to the potential short-term attention it generates, leading some companies to prioritize this tactic over genuine marketing efforts [4]. Group 2: Consumer Behavior - Consumers are influenced by the "bandwagon effect," where the perception of high order numbers encourages them to follow suit in purchasing decisions [2]. - It is advised that consumers maintain rational thinking regarding promotional data and consider their personal preferences before making significant purchases [5]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape - The automotive industry has seen a rise in unethical practices as brands struggle to compete, leading to tactics such as price wars and misleading marketing [6][10]. - The emergence of "zero-kilometer used cars" is a tactic used by some dealers to artificially inflate sales figures, which ultimately disrupts both new and used car markets [7][9]. - Industry leaders have called for a shift away from harmful competition and towards a focus on technological advancement and value creation [10]. Group 4: Regulatory Environment - Regulatory bodies are beginning to address the rampant issues within the automotive sector, including exaggerated claims and deceptive pricing practices [11]. - Despite these efforts, the competitive nature of the market means that some brands may continue to engage in unethical practices to gain market share [11].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released six guiding cases on data rights protection, addressing issues such as data ownership, utilization of data products, personal information protection, and the delivery of online platform accounts, thereby standardizing judicial practices in these areas [1] Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: A technology company sued a media company for unfair competition, claiming that the latter unlawfully copied and displayed data from its app, resulting in a court ruling that the media company must compensate the technology company with 5 million RMB [4][9] - Case 2: A user sued a technology company for violating personal information rights by collecting data without consent, leading to a court ruling that the technology company must provide a clear copy of the user's personal information and cease processing it [15][20] Group 2: Legal Framework - The guiding cases reference the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Copyright Law, emphasizing that data aggregators can seek legal protection for their operational interests when their data collections are unlawfully utilized by competitors [2][6] - The rulings highlight the importance of user consent in personal information processing, indicating that companies must provide options for users to refuse data collection without compromising access to services [17][20]

Core Viewpoint - A cultural company was sued for unfair competition due to the unauthorized scraping and use of over 50,000 short videos and user data from a technology company's app, resulting in a court ruling that the cultural company must compensate the technology company 5 million yuan [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - The technology company operates an app (甲APP) and the cultural company operates another app (乙APP). Between November 2018 and May 2019, 50,392 short videos on the乙APP were found to be identical to those on the甲APP, including proprietary codes [2]. - The case involved 19,079 user nicknames and avatars, with 15,924 being identical to those on the甲APP. Additionally, 127 comments were found to be the same in content, order, and punctuation [2]. - The technology company claimed that the cultural company engaged in unfair competition by directly scraping and displaying data from甲APP without permission, seeking 40 million yuan in damages [2]. Group 2: Court Rulings - The Beijing Haidian District Court ruled on December 31, 2020, ordering the cultural company to publish a statement to eliminate the impact of its actions and to pay 5 million yuan in damages to the technology company [3]. - The Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld this ruling on March 16, 2023, dismissing the cultural company's appeal [3]. Group 3: Legal Interpretation - The Haidian Court identified two main issues: the rights of the technology company over the aggregated data and whether the cultural company's actions constituted unfair competition [4]. - The court concluded that the technology company holds economic interests in the aggregated data, which includes user-uploaded content and associated user information, despite not being the original creators of the short videos [4][5]. - The cultural company's actions of scraping and using the data without permission were deemed to substantially replace the technology company's products and services, thus constituting unfair competition [6].

Core Insights - Didi's subsidiary 99Food is aggressively pursuing market share in Brazil by spending 900 million reais (approximately 1 billion RMB) to force merchants into "semi-exclusive agreements" that prohibit them from partnering with Meituan's Keeta, despite allowing continued collaboration with local giant iFood, which holds over 80% market share [1] - This strategy is seen as hypocritical, as Didi itself was a victim of similar tactics in 2022 when iFood imposed exclusive agreements that forced Didi out of the Brazilian delivery market [1] - The Brazilian court has intervened, ordering Didi to cease its unfair competition practices, including the purchase of Google Ads for the term "Keeta," which misleads users and diverts traffic away from Keeta's organic search results [1][7] Industry Context - The Brazilian food delivery market is experiencing a healthy annual growth rate of 20%, indicating a potential blue ocean for new entrants [2] - Instead of focusing on collaborative growth within this expanding market, Didi's actions reflect a more competitive and divisive approach, which may hinder overall industry development [2]

Core Insights - Didi's Brazilian food delivery business, 99Food, has been accused of engaging in "choose one" practices and unfair competition, similar to past allegations in the domestic market [1] - The company has invested over 1 billion RMB in Brazil, offering prepayments of at least 900 million Brazilian Reais to over 100 restaurant chains in exchange for exclusive agreements that primarily target Meituan's Keeta [1] - 99Food has admitted to signing "choose one" exclusive agreements with some restaurants and has been found to engage in practices that undermine Meituan's visibility in search results [1] - A Brazilian court has ruled that 99Food's actions constitute unfair competition and trademark infringement, ordering the company to cease these activities within three days or face daily fines [1] Investment and Market Dynamics - 99Food's strategy includes targeting key merchants with substantial financial incentives, such as offering 6 million Reais (approximately 8 million RMB) for semi-exclusive agreements [1] - The competitive landscape in Brazil's food delivery market is dominated by iFood, which holds an 80% market share, while Meituan's Keeta is still in the preparatory phase of entering the market [1] - The recent legal ruling against 99Food highlights the regulatory challenges and potential risks associated with aggressive competitive strategies in the Brazilian market [1]