该法明确指出，若谷歌或苹果基于安全考虑或为防止传播暴力、色情等有害内容而加以限制，属于"正 当理由"，可不受新法限制。 此外，该法还禁止这两家公司利用从操作系统或应用商店中获取的用户数据，为自家产品和服务提供不 正当优势。例如，在搜索引擎或系统推荐中优先展示自家应用，或限制第三方浏览器与操作系统的兼容 性，这类行为将被视为"滥用优势地位"行为。 一位JFTC官员表示，这项法案"将比（日本）反垄断法更快地对反垄断行为做出反应"。 根据南都此前报道，这部法律的背景是随着智能手机迅速普及并成为社会生活和经济活动的基础，使用 智能手机所必需的移动操作系统 、应用程序商店、浏览器和搜索引擎等"特定软件"市场形成只有少数 平台经营者的寡头结构，而这些经营者的反竞争行为阻碍了相关市场的公平和自由竞争。 为了解决"特定软件"市场存在竞争问题， JFTC曾将相关市场业务规模达到符合内阁令标准的经营者， 称为"指定提供商"，其中就包括。根据JFTC 2025年3月31日发布的公告，苹果公司、其子公司iTunes株 式会社以及谷歌公司均被正式指定为"指定提供商"。 为打破大型科技公司在智能手机应用生态中的主导地位，日本政府正迈出重 ...

Core Viewpoint - Hainan Province Market Supervision Administration is publicly soliciting clues regarding suspected monopolistic behaviors in the livelihood sector from now until the end of December 2025 [1] Group 1: Platform Economy - The scope of the solicitation includes new types of suspected monopolistic behaviors in the platform economy, such as "lowest price on the internet," "self-preference," and "algorithm collusion" [1] - It also addresses abuses of platform rules and algorithms that harm the interests of merchants and new employment forms [1] Group 2: Natural Monopoly - The solicitation covers natural monopoly areas, including public utilities like water, electricity, and gas, focusing on monopolistic behaviors such as refusal to trade, tying, and imposing unreasonable trading conditions [1] Group 3: Pharmaceutical Sector - In the pharmaceutical sector, the focus is on typical monopolistic behaviors such as horizontal monopoly agreements, unfair high pricing, and transaction limitations [1] Group 4: Funeral Services - The funeral services sector is included, with attention to behaviors like unjustified refusal to trade, transaction limitations, tying, and imposing unreasonable trading conditions [1] Group 5: Industry Associations - The solicitation also targets industry associations that organize operators to reach and implement fixed or altered prices, limit production quantities, divide sales markets, or jointly resist transactions [1] Group 6: Other Areas - Other areas of concern include construction materials, civil explosives, and vehicle inspection, which have been highlighted by public feedback as significant issues [1]

Core Viewpoint - The enforcement of antitrust laws in China has expanded to hold individuals accountable for organizing monopolistic agreements, marking a significant shift in regulatory practices and emphasizing the importance of compliance in sensitive industries like pharmaceuticals and energy [1][4][15] Summary by Sections Case Overview and Harm of Monopolistic Agreements - Four pharmaceutical companies were penalized for reaching a monopolistic agreement to fix prices of dexamethasone phosphate sodium raw materials, violating Article 17 of the Antitrust Law [2] - The individual responsible, identified as Guo, was fined 5 million yuan for facilitating this agreement, which is significant as it is the first case post-2022 Antitrust Law revision to hold an individual accountable [2][3] Market Impact and Social Consequences - The monopolistic behavior led to a significant distortion of market competition, affecting the pricing of downstream pharmaceutical products and increasing the financial burden on patients and the national healthcare system [3][4] - The raw material in question is crucial for producing medications used in treating severe COVID-19 cases, highlighting the public health implications of such monopolistic practices [2][3] Enforcement Highlights - This case represents a landmark in antitrust enforcement, as it extends liability to individuals who organize monopolistic agreements, thereby enhancing the legal accountability of market participants [4][6] - The enforcement action against Guo illustrates a shift towards a more comprehensive regulatory approach that targets not just corporate entities but also the individuals orchestrating anti-competitive behavior [4][8] Legal Framework and Implications - The 2022 revision of the Antitrust Law introduced provisions that explicitly prohibit individuals from organizing or assisting in the formation of monopolistic agreements, addressing previous regulatory gaps [9][10] - The case against Guo serves as a critical example of the legal system's ability to adapt and respond to complex market dynamics, particularly in the context of digital economies where traditional enforcement may be challenged [11][12] Economic Perspective - The role of organizers in monopolistic agreements is crucial, as they can significantly lower the costs of collusion and enhance the stability of such agreements, thereby posing a serious threat to market competition [10][11] - By targeting the organizers, the regulatory framework aims to prevent the formation of monopolistic structures before they can cause substantial market harm [11][15]

大家早上好！这里是今天的早报，每天早上，我都会在这里跟你聊聊昨夜今晨发生了哪些大事儿。 本 栏目由虎嗅出品。 周末要闻 【网警打谣：传播涉刘国梁不实信息，2人被处罚】 据界面新闻，公安部网安局5月17日消息，近日，一则关于国际乒联第一副主席、WTT世界乒联主席、中国乒 协原主席刘国梁的不实信息在互联网传播，误导大量网民关注和讨论。 据潇湘晨报，5月18日，多名网友反映，17日在贵阳市花果园小区附近发生一起交通事故，一辆小米SU7电动 车在行驶中撞到人，疑似造成人员伤亡。视频显示，现场有人躺在地上，来了多辆警车和救护车。5月18日， 潇湘晨报记者致电贵阳市南明区交警，一名工作人员表示，确有该起事故，人员伤亡情况他得去问一下。随 后，另一名工作人员接线表示，并不了解该事故，不便回应，"具体会有相关部门处理的。" 公安网安部门查明，网民杜某川、汤某在网上恶意传播相关谣言，造成谣言大量传播扩散，影响恶劣。目前， 属地公安机关已依法对杜某川、汤某等2人处以行政处罚。 网络不是法外之地，在网上发布信息必须遵守法律法规，切勿编造、传播不实信息。对于任何造谣、传谣行 为，警方将坚决依法予以打击，绝不姑息迁就 。希望广大网民能 ...

Core Points - The European Commission has taken a significant step towards resolving the antitrust investigation against Microsoft regarding Teams [1] - The investigation was initiated in 2020 following a complaint from Slack, accusing Microsoft of abusing its market dominance by bundling Teams with Office 365 [1] - Microsoft has unbundled Teams from Office 365 in the EU but critics argue that this change is too limited [1] Summary by Sections - **Investigation Background** - The antitrust investigation against Microsoft began due to Slack's complaint about the bundling of Teams with Office 365 [1] - **Microsoft's Commitments** - Microsoft has committed to further concessions, including separating Teams from Office for an additional seven years [1] - **Regulatory Process** - The European Commission will initiate a market test to gather feedback from competitors and customers over the coming months to assess whether Microsoft's new proposals meet the investigation's requirements [1] - **Interoperability Improvements** - Microsoft plans to enhance interoperability with other products, such as allowing a Zoom button to be added to the menu bar in Microsoft Outlook [1]

Core Viewpoint - The intense competition in the food delivery market has prompted regulatory scrutiny, with major platforms like JD, Meituan, and Ele.me being urged to ensure fair competition and compliance with relevant laws [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The State Administration for Market Regulation has conducted discussions with major food delivery platforms to ensure compliance with the E-commerce Law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and Food Safety Law, indicating potential consumer complaints regarding false advertising or unreasonable conditions imposed on merchants [1][2]. - In 2018, similar regulatory actions were taken against these platforms for unfair competition practices, including forcing merchants into exclusive agreements and extreme marketing tactics [1][2]. Group 2: Subsidy Dynamics - The current subsidy war involves significant financial commitments from platforms, with JD pledging 100 billion yuan, Alibaba potentially allocating up to 20 billion yuan for Ele.me, and Meituan planning to invest 100 billion yuan over three years to stimulate demand [3][4]. - Merchants often share the burden of promotional costs, with some platforms requiring them to lower prices or participate in promotional activities, which can lead to operational challenges for the merchants [4][5]. Group 3: Consumer and Merchant Impact - The aggressive promotional strategies have raised concerns about potential impacts on food safety and service quality, as platforms may pressure restaurants to reduce costs, potentially compromising delivery standards [6][8]. - Instances of delivery system failures have been reported, leading to order cancellations and financial losses for merchants, highlighting the operational risks associated with high-volume promotional activities [8][10]. Group 4: Market Competition and Practices - The controversial "choose one" practice, where platforms allegedly force merchants to choose between them, has been a point of contention, with past legal rulings against such practices [9][10]. - Despite the competitive landscape, many merchants are now operating across multiple platforms, indicating a shift in market dynamics where exclusivity is less valued [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - Three pharmaceutical companies, Xianju Pharmaceutical, Tianjin Pharmaceutical, and Lianhuan Pharmaceutical, have been penalized for monopolistic practices related to the raw material dexamethasone sodium phosphate, with total fines amounting to approximately 325 million yuan [1][2][3]. Group 1: Penalties and Financial Impact - Xianju Pharmaceutical was fined a total of approximately 195 million yuan, which includes the confiscation of illegal gains of 23.74 million yuan and a fine of about 172 million yuan based on 8% of its 2023 sales [2][5]. - Tianjin Pharmaceutical faced penalties totaling approximately 69.19 million yuan, including the confiscation of illegal gains of 42.76 million yuan and a reduced fine of about 13.2 million yuan after an 80% reduction [3][5]. - Lianhuan Pharmaceutical was fined approximately 61.04 million yuan, which includes the confiscation of illegal gains of 17.89 million yuan and a reduced fine of about 61.63 million yuan after a 30% reduction [3][5]. Group 2: Profitability Impact - The fines significantly impact the profitability of the companies, with Tianjin Pharmaceutical's penalties representing 2.15% of its recent audited revenue and 51.85% of its net profit attributable to shareholders [5]. - For Xianju Pharmaceutical, the total fine of 195 million yuan accounts for 4.87% of its projected 2024 revenue of 4 billion yuan and 49.17% of its net profit of 397 million yuan [5]. - Lianhuan Pharmaceutical's proposed fines represent 72.53% of its net profit of 84 million yuan for the previous year [5]. Group 3: Recurrence of Violations - Tianjin Pharmaceutical has been penalized for monopolistic behavior for the fourth time in four years, with cumulative fines exceeding 170 million yuan [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - Google is facing lawsuits from dozens of comparison websites in Europe, with claims totaling at least €12 billion (approximately ¥96 billion), accusing the company of "stealing their customers" [1] Group 1: Legal Context - The lawsuits are a result of a 2017 European Commission ruling that fined Google €2.4 billion for abusing its dominant position in search engines and favoring its own shopping services [1] - Following a ruling by the European Court last year confirming Google's violation of antitrust laws, plaintiffs no longer need to prove this in court, leading to a surge in lawsuits [1][2] - Currently, there are 12 civil lawsuits against Google in seven European countries, with nine of these cases collectively exceeding €12 billion in claims [1] Group 2: Ongoing and Upcoming Lawsuits - Several cases are set to go to trial soon, including a £1 billion (approximately $1.6 billion) claim from UK websites Kelkoo and the now-defunct Foundem, and a lawsuit from Compare Group in Amsterdam [3] - New claims continue to emerge, such as a €900 million lawsuit filed by LitFin in Amsterdam and a €2.97 billion claim from Italy's Moltiply Group SA [3] Group 3: Claims and Responses - Some plaintiffs have increased their claims significantly, with Idealo's co-founder raising their demand from €500 million to €3.3 billion, emphasizing the need for effective penalties against abuse of dominance [4] - Google has denied the allegations, asserting that its advertising features for comparison websites are functioning well and that it does not discriminate against competitors [4] Group 4: Challenges in Litigation - Despite the support from the European Commission's ruling, plaintiffs face challenges in proving that Google's actions directly caused their profit declines, which complicates the lawsuits [5] - Enforcement of any potential judgments may also be problematic, as plaintiffs might need to seek intervention from U.S. courts if Google refuses to comply with any awarded damages [6]

Group 1 - The core issue involves Xianju Pharmaceutical (002332) receiving an administrative penalty from the Tianjin Municipal Market Supervision Administration for engaging in a monopoly agreement to fix the price of Dexamethasone Phosphate Sodium raw materials, violating Article 17(1) of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China [1] - The company is ordered to cease illegal activities and faces a total penalty of RMB 195,296,912.22, which includes the confiscation of illegal gains amounting to RMB 23,746,680.00 and a fine of RMB 171,550,232.22, equivalent to 8% of its 2023 sales [1] - Other companies involved in the same matter, including Tianyao Pharmaceutical (600488.SH) and Lianhuan Pharmaceutical (600513.SH), were also penalized, with fines of RMB 69,192,400 and RMB 61,038,200 respectively [3]

Core Viewpoint - Google is facing claims from dozens of price comparison websites in the EU, amounting to at least €12.26 billion, accusing the tech giant of stealing their customers [1][3][5]. Group 1: Claims and Amounts - The total claims from various plaintiffs amount to €12.26 billion, with significant claims from Trovaprezzi (€2.97 billion), Pricerunner (€2.1 billion), and Kelkoo (€1.4 billion) [2][3]. - The lawsuits are linked to a 2017 EU ruling that fined Google €2.4 billion for abusing its market dominance, leading to a series of follow-up lawsuits [3][6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - There are currently 12 civil cases ongoing across seven European countries, with nine claims exceeding €12 billion [3][4]. - Upcoming court hearings include a £1 billion claim from Kelkoo and Foundem, and a €3.3 billion lawsuit from Idealo [4][5]. Group 3: Google's Response - Google denies all allegations related to the civil lawsuits and claims that its advertising features for price comparison websites have improved since 2017 [5][6]. - The company argues that it does not differentiate between its shopping services and those of competitors, stating that over 1,550 price comparison websites currently use its display features [5]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The surge in lawsuits against Google may encourage more companies to take action against the tech giant, potentially increasing the regulatory pressure from EU authorities [3][6]. - Legal experts note that proving Google's actions led to profit declines may be a significant challenge for the plaintiffs [6][7].