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].