Core Viewpoint - The court ruling in favor of Zhang Yazhou against Tesla highlights the issue of data transparency in the smart automotive industry, emphasizing that technological advancement should not justify data monopolization by companies [1][2][3] Group 1: Legal and Ethical Implications - The court's decision mandates Tesla to provide complete driving data from the half-hour prior to the accident, marking a significant victory for consumer rights [1] - This ruling serves as a judicial precedent to challenge the prevailing "data black box" mentality in the smart automotive sector, which often leads to disputes where companies deny responsibility while consumers lack evidence [2] - The case underscores the need for the industry to recalibrate its ethical standards, prioritizing user safety and transparency over technological superiority [2][3] Group 2: Industry Recommendations - Companies in the smart automotive sector are urged to abandon the "data hegemony" mindset and adopt data transparency as a fundamental responsibility [2] - Recommendations include establishing standardized data interfaces for consumers and third-party organizations to access critical data, and enhancing data storage mechanisms to ensure information authenticity [2] - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to expedite the development of regulations regarding automotive data security, clarify data ownership and usage rights, and create independent third-party data oversight platforms [2]

Core Viewpoint - The platform economy is currently trapped in a "low-price competition" and "subsidy war" dilemma, necessitating urgent solutions to transition towards healthy competition focused on efficiency and service [1][23]. Group 1: Investigation Initiatives - The "Breaking 'Involution' and Reshaping Ecology" investigation action was initiated by the Digital Economy New Media & Think Tank Network Economic Society to promote healthy development in the platform economy [1][23]. - This investigation follows the significant achievements of last year's "Refund Only" investigation, aiming for a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis [1]. Group 2: Expert Involvement - The investigation involves collaboration with university professors, associations, think tank experts, investors, lawyers, and analysts to deeply interpret the "involution-style" competition in the platform economy [9]. - A report titled "2025 Platform Economy 'Anti-Involution' Analysis Report" will be published as a result of this investigation [9]. Group 3: Key Issues Identified - The investigation highlights several practical challenges in applying core legal principles, such as the difficulty in cost recognition for predatory pricing and the ambiguity in defining market dominance in a two-sided market [11][12]. - Issues related to algorithmic collusion and the challenges of proving such behavior under current antitrust laws are also emphasized [13]. Group 4: Legal Gaps and Recommendations - There is a lack of clarity in recognizing data abuse and data monopoly, which hampers effective enforcement against platforms that utilize data advantages to stifle competition [14]. - Recommendations include refining platform economy-specific regulations, enhancing data and algorithm governance, and optimizing enforcement mechanisms and liability systems [18][19][20]. Group 5: Focus Areas of Investigation - The investigation will focus on various sectors, including retail e-commerce platforms (e.g., JD.com, Taobao, Douyin), local life (instant retail) platforms (e.g., Meituan, Ele.me), cross-border e-commerce platforms (e.g., Amazon, AliExpress), ride-hailing platforms (e.g., Didi Chuxing), and online travel platforms (e.g., Ctrip, Qunar) [24][32].