一.市场监管总局查处成都快购科技有限公司违法案 2025年9月，市场监管总局依法对成都快购科技有限公司（以下简称当事人）涉嫌违反《中华人 民共和国电子商务法》等法律规定的行为立案调查。经查，当事人存在下述违法行为： 1 . 未依法履行信息公示义务。当事人未在首页显著位置持续公示证照信息，且未及时更新发生 变更的行政许可公示信息，违反《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第十五条的规定。当事人未在首 页显著位置持续公示平台服务协议以及未公示交易规则信息，违反《中华人民共和国电子商务 法》第三十三条的规定。 2 . 平台内经营者收取不合理费用。当事人利用服务协议和交易规则，对平台内经营者违反法律 法规或平台协议规则的部分行为收取惩罚性非定额违约金，部分违约金超出合理范围，存在向平 台内经营者收取不合理费用的问题，违反《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第三十五条的规定。 3 . 对消费者未尽到安全保障义务。当事人运营的平台内存在不符合保障人身、财产安全的要 求，或侵害消费者合法权益的多类商品在售，当事人未及时采取必要措施，对消费者未尽到安全 保障义务，违反《中华人民共和国电子商务法》第三十八条的规定。 市场监管总局今天（30日）集 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court is taking steps to address "involution" competition through judicial measures, focusing on regulating monopolistic behaviors and preventing large enterprises from squeezing the profit margins of small and medium-sized enterprises [1][3]. Group 1: Judicial Measures Against Involution Competition - The Supreme People's Court's Intellectual Property Court aims to explore judicial paths to comprehensively address "involution" competition, emphasizing the need to regulate predatory pricing and other exclusionary practices by dominant firms [1][3]. - The court has identified three main factors contributing to "involution" competition: monopolistic behaviors, insufficient innovation, and unfair competition practices [1]. Group 2: Actions Taken by the Intellectual Property Court - The court has increased the supply of competition rules and case studies, clarifying the boundaries of market behavior, and has published 34 typical cases related to monopolistic and unfair competition since 2021 [2]. - Judicial anti-monopoly efforts have intensified, with 66 cases recognized as monopolistic since the court's establishment, including 15 cases in 2025 [2][4]. - The court is focusing on protecting innovation and promoting high-quality competition by applying measures such as evidence preservation and punitive damages to combat patent infringements [2]. Group 3: Addressing Malicious Competition - The court is targeting malicious competition cycles by strictly regulating unfair competition behaviors, such as stealing trade secrets and organized poaching, to prevent downward competition spirals [2][3]. - In 2025, the court handled several high-profile cases in sectors like platforms, new energy, and pharmaceuticals, encouraging cooperation and innovation among leading enterprises [3]. Group 4: Strengthening Judicial and Administrative Coordination - The court is enhancing the integration of administrative enforcement and judicial adjudication, ensuring that antitrust violations identified in civil lawsuits are reported to enforcement agencies [4]. - Since its establishment, the court has effectively adjudicated 203 antitrust cases, with 66 cases confirmed as monopolistic, covering various sectors including pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and e-commerce [4].

最高人民法院知识产权法庭副庭长朱理介绍，人民法院聚焦治理恶性竞争循环，严格规制不正当竞争行 为。重点打击以窃取、利诱、胁迫、有计划有组织"挖人"等不正当手段获取他人技术秘密、攫取他人竞 争优势的行为，着力阻断由不正当竞争行为引发的"向下竞争"的恶性循环，划出公平竞争底线。 2025年妥善处理了一批社会广泛关注的涉平台、新能源、医药等行业领军企业诉讼案件，引导企业以合 作促发展、以创新促竞争，走出恶性竞争泥潭，营造良好市场生态。 21世纪经济报道记者章驰 1月28日，最高人民法院举行新闻发布会，介绍国家层面知识产权案件上诉审理机制运行七周年情况， 并发布《最高人民法院知识产权法庭年度报告(2025)》。 当前"内卷式"竞争是全国统一大市场建设中的一大突出问题。近年来，人民法院加大司法反垄断力度， 严格规制垄断行为。 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 本公司董事会及全体董事保证本公告内容不存在任何虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏，并对其内容 的真实性、准确性和完整性承依法担法律责任。 重要内容提示： ● 案件所处的诉讼阶段：法院已立案，尚未开庭审理 ● 上市公司所处的当事人地位：思看科技（杭州）股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"或"思看科技"）为被 告。 ● 涉诉金额：人民币1,004万元 公司将密切关注和高度重视该事项，依法主张自身合法权益，积极应诉并采取相关法律措施，通过合法 途径切实维护公司名誉和股东的利益。公司将根据《上海证券交易所科创板股票上市规则》等相关规则 的有关规定，就上述诉讼案件的进展情况及时履行信息披露义务。 一、本次诉讼的基本情况 近日，思看科技（杭州）股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"或"思看科技"）收到浙江省杭州市中级人民法 院送达的《应诉通知书》（案号为（2026）浙01民初230号）及《民事起诉状》等相关材料。杭州启源 视觉科技有限公司起诉思看科技不正当竞争。截至本公告披露日，该案件已立案，尚未开庭审理。 ● 其他相关说明及背景：杭州启源视觉科技有限公司（以下简称"杭州启源"或"启源公 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company, Sikan Technology, is facing a lawsuit from Hangzhou Qiyuan Vision Technology Co., Ltd. for unfair competition, with the claimed amount of 10.04 million yuan [1] Group 1 - The plaintiff alleges that Sikan Technology engaged in unfair competition practices to gain an improper advantage [1] - The lawsuit requests the defendant to immediately cease the unfair competition activities and delete illegally recorded video materials [1] - The economic damages claimed by the plaintiff amount to 10 million yuan, along with reasonable legal expenses of 40,000 yuan [1]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Bull Group and Jia's Electric revolves around the advertising slogan "7 out of 10 Chinese families use Bull," which is claimed to be misleading and has led to accusations of false advertising and unfair competition [1][5][6]. Group 1: Legal Dispute - Jia's Electric has raised jurisdictional objections to Bull Group's lawsuit and has countered with claims of false advertising and unfair competition [1][5]. - Bull Group has accused Jia's Electric of damaging its reputation through misleading comparisons and has demanded the removal of the videos and an apology [5][6]. - The legal battle is seen as a clash of values between misleading advertising and a commitment to fair competition and consumer rights [6]. Group 2: Financial Performance - Bull Group's financial performance has been under pressure, with a notable decline in revenue and net profit in the second and third quarters of 2025, marking a rare double decline [3][11]. - For the first three quarters of 2025, Bull Group reported revenues of 12.198 billion and a net profit of 2.979 billion, representing year-on-year declines of 3.22% and 8.72% respectively [11]. - The company's marketing expenses for 2024 totaled 755 million, contributing to a total sales expense of 1.369 billion [2][11]. Group 3: Market Position and Stock Performance - Since January 13, 2021, Bull Group's stock price has dropped by over 50%, reflecting a significant decline in market valuation [4][11]. - The company's market capitalization has decreased from a peak of 153.594 billion to 76.55 billion by January 23, 2026, less than half of its highest value [11]. - Bull Group has faced previous legal challenges, including a 2.95 billion fine for monopolistic practices in 2021, highlighting ongoing regulatory scrutiny [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of renting video platform VIP accounts, which constitutes unfair competition and violates the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China [1][2]. Group 1: Case Summary - A Beijing court ruled that a seller, Hu, must compensate an electronic product company 310,000 yuan for renting out video VIP accounts without permission, which undermined the company's pricing structure and business model [1]. - The plaintiff, an operator of a video terminal device, relies on VIP membership fees as a primary revenue source, which was directly threatened by Hu's rental activities [1]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The court determined that Hu's actions created substantial competition with the plaintiff, despite not being a direct competitor, by targeting the same core consumer group [1]. - The judge emphasized that any new business model must comply with legal standards to avoid harming others' legitimate rights and disrupting fair market order, indicating clear legal risks associated with account rental practices [2].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around a legal dispute between Bull Group and Jia's Electric, with Bull Group suing for 4.2 million yuan over alleged misleading advertising claims [1][4] - Jia's Electric held a media conference to address accusations of "hitching a ride on traffic," asserting that their intentions were to maintain fair competition and consumer rights, rather than to create hype [1] - Jia's Electric's legal counsel indicated that they have raised jurisdictional objections to Bull Group's lawsuit, which is currently under review, and have filed a separate lawsuit alleging compliance issues with Bull Group's advertising [1] Group 2 - Jia's Electric's public letter to industry peers described the lawsuit as a clash of values, emphasizing the choice between misleading advertising and relying on solid technology and products to win over consumers [4] - Bull Group defended its advertising slogan, stating it is backed by rigorous third-party research and complies with Chinese advertising laws, while expressing a commitment to consumer feedback and ongoing optimization of their messaging [4] - Jia's Electric was founded in March 2007 with a registered capital of 30 million yuan, focusing on the production and sale of lighting fixtures, electrical switches, sockets, and home appliances [4]

海辰储能并非首次遭遇不实信息的困扰。从去年8月针对多处严重失实报道的公开回应，到9月就海外合 作、高管谣言等信息的郑重澄清，再到今年1月短短一周内两度发声，这是面对舆论压力摆出的及时、 坦诚态度，体现出海辰储能的不惧、坦荡与真诚。但在此背后，包括舆论战在内的不正当竞争，一而 再、再而三让无辜企业卷入其中，值得全行业关注与反思。 以事实为依据、秉持坦诚态度及时回应不实言论 "感谢社会各界长期以来的关注与支持。我们呼吁广大公众理性辨别网络信息，不造谣、不信谣、不传 谣，共建清朗网络空间。"海辰储能在上述声明中呼吁。 以失实、虚假报道为代表的"舆论战"，不仅中伤了讲正气、走正道的企业，更是阻碍了全行业的健康可 持续发展。不久前，有关于印度信实工业有限公司已暂停其在印度生产锂离子电池计划的报道称，由于 未能获得中国企业的核心电芯制造技术授权，信实原计划在印度建设首座锂电池超级工厂的项目已陷入 停滞。消息一出，旋即引发外界对中国储能企业海外发展的种种猜测，进而有媒体将上述合作对象指向 海辰储能。 1月19日，厦门海辰储能科技股份有限公司(以下简称"海辰储能")发布了一则《严正声明》，就近期子 弹财经、新能源观等媒体平台 ...

Core Viewpoint - The emergence of AI-enabled smartphones raises questions about user authorization, data privacy, and the legal responsibilities of manufacturers, agents, third-party apps, and users as these devices challenge existing mobile interaction logic and commercial rules [1][2]. Group 1: AI Smartphone Development - AI smartphones, which integrate large language models, are expected to evolve significantly by 2025, with multiple manufacturers launching products featuring AI agent capabilities [2]. - The technology landscape for AI smartphones in China is diverse, with the GUI approach facing significant safety and legal controversies due to its invasive operational methods [2][5]. Group 2: Legal and Compliance Challenges - Legal experts emphasize the importance of ensuring users are adequately informed about AI functionalities, advocating for explicit user consent at critical junctures [3]. - There is a debate within the legal community regarding whether cross-application operations could constitute unfair competition, particularly in light of previous cases involving traffic hijacking [3][4]. Group 3: Commercial Implications - The core issue behind the compliance challenges is the competition for control over the next generation of traffic entry points and ecosystem dominance, with commercial barriers being more significant than legal ones [3][4]. - Major tech companies are striving to create their own AI traffic entry points, integrating various services to enhance user engagement and streamline operations [4]. Group 4: Future Directions - The development of AI agents may evolve towards a hybrid model combining API and GUI approaches, with API agents offering higher accuracy and privacy for sensitive operations, while GUI agents provide flexibility for less critical tasks [6]. - The current stage of AI smartphone technology is still nascent, and there is a lack of clear regulations regarding liability in cases of data breaches or systemic risks [7][8].