第二，《指引》的核心亮点之一在于其提供详实的法律条文解释，经由风险示例展现出更强的实践 指导性。不同于传统法律文本的抽象表述，《指引》将反垄断法上的一系列核心条款转化为具体可识别 的行为边界，将《中华人民共和国反垄断法》相对抽象的"标准"尽可能的明确化、具体化。特别是具 体、生动的风险示例，使平台经营者能够清晰识别监管红线，避免"踩线"，降低合规成本，提高效率， 为平台经济健康有序发展提供更为明确的具体指引。 《互联网平台反垄断合规指引》（以下简称《指引》）的正式出台，标志着中国在平台经济反垄断 领域迈入了系统化、精细化治理的新阶段。尤其是自2020年《关于平台经济领域的反垄断指南》发布征 求意见稿、并于2021年正式出台以来，中国在平台经济反垄断领域又走过五年有余的发展历程。这不仅 是中国数字经济高速扩张的阶段，更是反垄断法治体系在执法与司法维度上不断成熟、深化和建构自主 知识体系的重要时期。本次《指引》的出台，是近五年内中国平台经济发展自主知识体系的系统凝练， 其既总结了过去的中国治理经验和治理智慧，又立足长远，为后续进一步建构良性竞争的市场秩序提供 方向。《指引》不仅填补了平台经济反垄断合规领域的潜在规 ...

2月13日，市场监管总局正式发布《互联网平台反垄断合规指引》（以下简称《指引》）。这是继此前 征求意见稿公开后，该文件以正式版本落地，针对平台经济领域的垄断风险划定了清晰的行为边界。 来源：市场资讯 值得注意的是，《指引》对算法治理着墨较多。在横向垄断协议的风险示例中，文件列举了具有竞争关 系的平台经营者通过算法共谋统一定价机制、抽佣比例等行为；在纵向垄断协议方面，则提示平台应避 免利用大数据分析、人工智能等技术手段对转售价格进行自动化设定或间接限定。 此前2025年12月，市场监管总局反垄断执法一司副司长刘健曾在新闻发布会上介绍，征求意见稿中的8 个风险示例涉及数据传输、算法适用、服务定价、搜索排序、推荐展示、流量分配、补贴优惠等多种平 台经营活动，旨在为平台企业提供务实管用的合规指导。 《指引》的发布，是我国平台经济反垄断常态化监管制度建设的又一步，将《反垄断法》的核心条款转 化为平台经营者可识别、可操作的行为规范。 声明：市场有风险，投资需谨慎。本文为AI基于第三方数据生成，仅供参考，不构成个人投资建议。 《指引》依据《中华人民共和国反垄断法》制定，重点覆盖垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位、经营者集中 以及滥 ...

Group 1 - The core issue in the food delivery industry is the ongoing "subsidy war" initiated by leading platforms, which has led to excessive subsidies and a price war, pressuring small and medium-sized merchants to engage in low-price competition, exacerbating industry competition [1] - The food delivery service sector is a significant part of the platform economy, characterized by network effects, multi-sided markets, and data-driven elements, deeply integrated into daily life and the economic cycle, involving various stakeholders [2][4] - The investigation into the market competition status of the food delivery service industry is legally grounded in the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, which empowers the State Council's Anti-Monopoly Committee to conduct such assessments [3] Group 2 - The investigation aims to address the irrational competition in the food delivery sector, where quality is overlooked in favor of price and subsidies, and serves as a proactive regulatory measure to respond to societal concerns [4][5] - This approach aligns with international practices in antitrust jurisdictions, emphasizing preventive regulation to identify risks and guide compliance, thus fostering a multi-faceted governance structure involving government oversight, platform self-regulation, merchant collaboration, and social supervision [5]

Core Viewpoint - The investigation into Ctrip Group for alleged abuse of market dominance marks a significant event in China's online travel agency (OTA) sector, highlighting the extension of antitrust regulations from e-commerce to travel services [1][20]. Group 1: Investigation Background - Ctrip's investigation is a result of long-standing monopolistic practices that have led to collective grievances from merchants and a surge in consumer complaints, prompting regulatory intervention [21]. - The domestic OTA market is highly concentrated, with the top four companies holding over 85% market share, disrupting fair competition [21]. - Ctrip's financial performance starkly contrasts with the struggling hotel industry, with Ctrip reporting revenues of 62.85 billion yuan and a net profit of 29.113 billion yuan in 2025, while the average net profit margin for hotels is only 5%-8% [21]. Group 2: Monopolistic Practices - Ctrip's monopolistic behavior is characterized by three main areas: exploitation of suppliers, consumer exploitation, and stifling competition [22]. - On the supply side, Ctrip employs coercive strategies such as exclusive agreements and high commissions, forcing small businesses into untenable positions [23]. - Ctrip's pricing tools allow it to unilaterally adjust hotel prices without merchant consent, significantly impacting their profitability [24]. - The commission rates charged by Ctrip have increased from 8%-10% to 15%-22%, severely squeezing the profit margins of partner businesses [25]. Group 3: Consumer Impact - Ctrip's practices have led to consumer exploitation through differential pricing based on user profiles, resulting in significant price discrepancies for similar services [26]. - The company employs forced bundling of services, which increases costs for consumers and complicates the purchasing process [26]. - High cancellation fees and restrictive refund policies further diminish consumer rights and satisfaction [27]. Group 4: Competitive Landscape - Ctrip has utilized capital acquisitions to eliminate competition, significantly increasing its market share to over 70% by acquiring key competitors [28]. - The company imposes restrictions on new platforms, limiting their access to hotel resources and data, thereby maintaining its dominant position [28]. Group 5: Broader Implications - Ctrip's monopolistic behavior has stifled innovation within the OTA industry, leading to a decline in investment in service upgrades and product innovation [30]. - The financial strain on suppliers has increased, with many small businesses facing unsustainable operating conditions due to high commission fees [31]. - Consumers are paying significantly higher prices through OTA platforms compared to direct bookings, with estimates suggesting an annual overpayment exceeding 120 billion yuan [33]. - Following the investigation announcement, Ctrip's market value plummeted, with a loss of approximately 248 billion HKD in a single day, reflecting investor concerns over future profitability [34]. Group 6: Regulatory Insights - The investigation signifies a shift towards regularized antitrust enforcement in China's platform economy, with clear compliance boundaries established for OTA operations [35]. - Ctrip may face substantial fines if found guilty of violating antitrust laws, which could range from 5.3 billion to 53.3 billion yuan based on its previous year's revenue [35]. - The outcome of this investigation could reshape the competitive landscape, fostering a more equitable environment for smaller players and enhancing consumer choices [36].

Core Viewpoint - The recently released "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments)" introduces eight new types of monopoly risks, providing practical compliance guidance for platform enterprises [1][2] Group 1: Purpose and Context - The purpose of the guidelines is to guide platform enterprises in enhancing risk identification, risk management, and compliance assurance to effectively prevent antitrust compliance risks and promote the innovative and healthy development of the platform economy [1] - The platform economy in China has developed rapidly, characterized by significant scale effects and network effects, leading to a "winner-takes-all" scenario where leading platform enterprises can easily engage in cross-industry competition and rapid expansion [1] Group 2: Key Risks and Compliance Guidance - The guidelines adopt a problem-oriented approach, combining specific rules with eight risk examples to provide practical compliance guidance for platform enterprises [2] - The guidelines highlight that platform enterprises with market dominance should avoid implementing "choose one from two" practices through punitive or incentivizing measures, based on enforcement experiences [2] - The guidelines warn that requiring merchants on platforms to sell goods at prices lower than those on competing platforms may constitute abuse of market dominance or monopolistic agreements [2] - The guidelines emphasize the importance of transparency in algorithms, identifying "algorithm collusion" as a risk, and encourage platform enterprises to conduct algorithm screening to prevent monopolistic behaviors from the source [2] Group 3: Regulatory Approach - The regulatory approach aims to balance regulation and development, accelerating the introduction of the guidelines, strengthening antitrust enforcement in the platform economy, and fostering a positive competitive ecosystem while protecting the legitimate rights and interests of relevant parties [2]

Core Points - The Market Regulation Administration has released a draft of the "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms," highlighting the significant antitrust risks in the platform economy [1] - The draft identifies "minimum price" requirements as one of the eight potential violations, indicating that platforms may not prohibit merchants from selling at lower prices elsewhere [1] - The guidelines aim to enhance the antitrust compliance awareness and capabilities of platform companies [1] Group 1 - The draft warns major e-commerce platforms against using punitive or incentivizing measures to enforce exclusivity [4] - The regulatory body aims to guide companies in strengthening risk management and compliance [4] - There is a focus on promoting algorithm transparency, requiring companies to disclose the logic behind their algorithms [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese National Market Regulation Administration is accelerating the introduction of the "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms," indicating that requiring merchants to offer the "lowest price on the entire network" may constitute abuse of market dominance or monopolistic agreements [1][2] Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The National Market Regulation Administration plans to expedite the release of the "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms" to help platform operators identify, assess, and prevent antitrust compliance risks [1] - The guidelines aim to clarify behavioral boundaries for platform operators and enhance their compliance awareness and capabilities in the context of significant antitrust risks in the platform economy [2] Group 2: Market Characteristics - The platform economy exhibits distinct competitive characteristics compared to traditional economies, including significant scale effects and network effects, which facilitate cross-industry competition and rapid expansion [1] - Platform enterprises possess inherent advantages over merchants and consumers, allowing them to set rules, manage data, utilize algorithms, and allocate traffic [1] Group 3: Compliance Guidelines - The guidelines advise platform enterprises with market dominance to avoid implementing "either-or" practices through punitive or incentivizing measures [2] - The requirement for merchants to offer the "lowest price on the entire network" is highlighted as a potential abuse of market dominance or a monopolistic agreement [2] - The guidelines also address risks associated with "algorithm collusion" and encourage platforms to conduct algorithm screening to establish a system for identifying and preventing algorithmic monopolies [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential antitrust risks associated with platform companies requiring merchants to maintain "lowest prices across the internet," which may constitute abuse of market dominance or collusion agreements [1]. Group 1: Antitrust Guidelines - The recently released "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments)" outlines eight new types of monopoly risks, providing practical compliance guidance for platform companies [1]. - The guidelines indicate that requiring merchants to sell products at prices lower than those on competing platforms could be seen as an abuse of market dominance or collusion [1]. - The guidelines emphasize the importance of transparency in algorithms, warning that "algorithm black boxes" can harm the interests of merchants and consumers [1]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The market regulatory authority has taken legal action against several platform companies for "choose one from two" monopolistic practices, summarizing enforcement experiences in the guidelines [1]. - The guidelines advise platform companies with market dominance to avoid implementing "choose one from two" behaviors through punitive or incentivizing measures [1]. Group 3: Platform Economy - The platform economy has unique business logic and behavior patterns, involving multiple stakeholders, making it complex to delineate behavioral boundaries [2]. - Regulatory authorities aim to guide platform companies in enhancing risk identification, risk management, and compliance assurance to effectively prevent antitrust compliance risks and promote healthy development of the platform economy [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent guidelines issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) regarding antitrust compliance for internet platforms, highlighting potential monopolistic behaviors and risks associated with platform operations [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Compliance Guidelines - The SAMR has introduced the "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments)" which outlines eight new types of monopolistic risks to provide practical compliance guidance for platform enterprises [1]. - One of the highlighted risks is the requirement for merchants to sell products at "the lowest price on the entire network," which may constitute abuse of market dominance or collusion [1]. - The guidelines emphasize the importance of transparency in algorithms, warning against "algorithm black boxes" that could harm the interests of merchants and consumers, and encourage platforms to develop systems for identifying and preventing monopolistic behaviors [1]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Market Dynamics - The SAMR has already taken legal action against several platform companies for engaging in "choose one from two" monopolistic practices, and the guidelines summarize enforcement experiences to help dominant platforms avoid punitive or incentivizing measures that lead to such behaviors [1]. - The unique business logic and behavior patterns of platform economies complicate the delineation of behavioral boundaries, necessitating regulatory guidance for platforms to enhance risk identification, management, and compliance assurance [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent guidelines issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) regarding antitrust compliance for internet platforms, highlighting potential monopolistic behaviors and risks associated with platform operations [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Compliance Guidelines - The SAMR has introduced the "Antitrust Compliance Guidelines for Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments)" which outlines eight new types of monopolistic risks for platform enterprises [1]. - One significant risk identified is the requirement for merchants to sell products at "the lowest price across the internet," which may constitute abuse of market dominance or collusion [1]. - The guidelines emphasize the importance of transparency in algorithms, warning against "algorithm black boxes" that could harm the interests of merchants and consumers [1]. Group 2: Enforcement and Risk Management - The SAMR has taken action against multiple cases of monopolistic practices, particularly the "choose one from two" behavior, and the guidelines aim to summarize enforcement experiences to help platforms avoid such practices [1]. - Liu Jian, a deputy director at SAMR, stated that the platform economy has unique business logic and behavior patterns, making it complex to delineate behavioral boundaries [2]. - The regulatory body encourages platform enterprises to enhance risk identification, management, and compliance to effectively mitigate antitrust compliance risks and promote healthy development of the platform economy [2].