Core Viewpoint - A group of 55 Chinese consumers has submitted a complaint to the State Administration for Market Regulation, accusing Apple Inc. of abusing its market dominance in China through various monopolistic practices that harm consumer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations Against Apple - The complaint alleges that Apple forces Chinese consumers to use its In-App Purchase (IAP) system for digital goods and services, prohibits developers from directing consumers to alternative payment methods, and imposes unfairly high commissions of up to 30% [5][7]. - The core demands include an investigation into Apple's alleged illegal activities and a mandate to allow third-party payment channels and app stores in China [3][4]. Group 2: Specific Requests for Action - The consumers request that Apple be ordered to open third-party payment channels, allowing developers to guide consumers to external platforms without incurring any commission [8]. - They also demand that Apple permit access to iOS applications outside of the App Store, including third-party app stores and sideloading options, without charging any fees [9]. - Additionally, the complaint calls for a reduction in the commission rate for in-app purchases to be lower than the most favorable rates in other countries [10]. Group 3: Comparative Analysis - The complaint highlights that Chinese consumers face "country-specific discrimination," as they are unable to access third-party payment options and are subjected to the highest commission rates globally [11][13]. - It cites recent legal developments in the U.S. and EU, where courts have mandated Apple to provide payment options and reduce commission rates, contrasting this with the situation in China [12][14]. Group 4: Financial Impact on Consumers - In 2024, Chinese consumers are projected to pay $6.44 billion in "Apple tax," second only to the U.S. at $14.8 billion, and surpassing Europe at $4.8 billion [15][30]. - The complaint calculates that the "Apple tax" constitutes 10% of Apple's revenue in China, compared to 8.8% in the U.S. and 4.6% in Europe, indicating a heavier burden on Chinese consumers [15][30]. Group 5: Global Legal Actions - The complaint notes that over ten countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have initiated legal actions against Apple for similar monopolistic practices [18][31]. - Japan's Fair Trade Commission has announced plans to force Apple to open third-party transaction models by December 2025, marking a significant shift in the Asian market [19][31].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the "choose one from two" (二选一) accusation against Ctrip, highlighting the risks of monopolistic behavior in the OTA (Online Travel Agency) sector and its impact on market dynamics [4][5][19]. Group 1: Market Dynamics and Competition - Ctrip is currently facing scrutiny after being questioned by the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Bureau, with media focusing on its pricing strategies and potential monopolistic practices [5][19]. - The OTA industry is more complex than the food delivery sector, involving higher consumer decision costs and a longer supply chain, which could lead to greater risks if monopolistic behavior is established [9][10]. - Ctrip's market dominance is significant, with projections indicating it will hold a 56% market share in 2024, far surpassing competitors like Tongcheng (15%) and Meituan (13%) [16][18]. Group 2: Pricing Strategies and Merchant Impact - Ctrip's commission structure places significant financial pressure on hotel merchants, with basic commissions ranging from 12% to 15%, and total costs potentially nearing 30% [11][12][13]. - Merchants have reported that Ctrip's "price adjustment assistant" and "golden card" system may effectively force them into a "choose one from two" scenario, limiting their pricing autonomy and market choices [22][34]. - The article suggests that Ctrip's operational strategies may create a closed market where it dictates terms, impacting the competitive landscape for merchants [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant increase in egg prices in the U.S. due to a supply shortage primarily caused by avian influenza, leading to a historical high in egg prices and raising concerns about inflation and potential monopolistic practices in the industry [2][6][12]. Group 1: Price Increase and Supply Shortage - The wholesale price of eggs in the U.S. has surged by 255% over the past four months, with the average price reaching $4.95 per dozen, a record high [2][6]. - Approximately 15% of the laying hens in the U.S. have been culled due to avian influenza, contributing to the supply crisis [6][8]. - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 30.3 million chickens have died due to avian influenza since the beginning of 2025, with significant losses occurring in several states [8][9]. Group 2: Government Response and Market Dynamics - The USDA is considering importing more eggs and has announced a $1 billion investment to combat the crisis and stabilize prices [3][9]. - Analysts suggest that the high prices may suppress demand, but it will take months for producers to fill the supply gap [10]. - The upcoming Easter holiday may exacerbate supply issues as consumers continue to stockpile eggs [11]. Group 3: Monopolistic Concerns and Industry Dynamics - The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into potential monopolistic behavior among large egg producers, examining whether they have colluded to raise prices [12][13]. - The egg industry has seen significant consolidation, with Cal-Maine Foods controlling about 20% of the market and reporting a 342% increase in sales due to rising egg prices [15]. - Critics argue that the losses from avian influenza are relatively small compared to the profits being made by producers, suggesting possible exploitation of the situation [14][15].