对数字经济领域新型不正当竞争行为进行"靶向治疗"，正是新修订的反不正当竞争法的鲜明特色。其 中，围绕虚假交易、数据权益保护、平台责任三大问题的规制，是公众热议之所在，也是新法最大亮 点。 新法对虚假交易亮剑，旨在斩断刷单炒信灰色产业链。此前刷单炒信已成为电商、直播等行业的潜规 则，虚假的销量和好评不仅误导消费者决策，更推动形成了"劣币驱逐良币"的恶性循环。新法明确将虚 构交易、编造用户评价等虚假交易行为列为不正当竞争，并提高处罚力度，从根源上打击数据造假，这 一规定直击行业痛点，既是对消费者知情权的保护，也是对诚信经营的呵护，有助于让市场回归以质量 取胜的正轨。 十四届全国人大常委会第十六次会议表决通过新修订的《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》，自10月15 日起施行。 公平竞争是市场经济的基石。在数字经济浪潮奔涌的当下，市场竞争格局日新月异，呈现出一系列新的 特点。 一方面平台经济、共享经济等新业态快速发展，数据成为关键要素，算法、人工智能等技术的应用日趋 深广；另一方面，市场集中度提高，规模效应越来越显著，头部平台往往更容易形成市场主导地位。 这些特点也意味着反不正当竞争面临诸多新挑战。 新的市场格局中，新 ...

Core Viewpoint - The frequent disputes over password code sharing reflect a competition for user relationship data among platforms, highlighting the importance of data protection and utilization in the digital economy [1] Group 1: Password Code Sharing and User Relationship Data - Password codes serve as temporary, one-time strings used for identity verification and access, and can facilitate the transfer of user relationship data between platforms [2][3] - Platforms can induce users to share password codes, which contain special identification information, allowing them to map relationships between users and expand their user networks [3] Group 2: Definition of Personal Information - Personal information is defined as data that can identify a specific individual, including names, contact details, and relationship data [4] - User relationship chains, as a reflection of personal contacts, qualify as personal information under legal definitions [4] Group 3: User Consent and Data Sharing - User sharing of password codes does not equate to informed consent for personal data processing, especially when users are incentivized without clear disclosure of data collection practices [5][6] - The practice of "induced sharing" obscures the true nature of data sharing, leading users to believe they are only sharing activity information rather than personal relationship data [6] Group 4: Competitive Interests in User Relationship Data - Platforms invest significant resources in developing and maintaining user relationship data, which should be recognized as a competitive asset [7] - Induced sharing practices can undermine the economic interests of platforms by allowing competitors to access valuable user relationship data without consent [7] Group 5: Importance of User Relationship Data for New Apps - The necessity for new apps to rely on user relationship data from established platforms raises questions about competitive fairness and the obligation to share such data [8] - User relationship data is a competitive resource that platforms are not obligated to share without user consent [8] Group 6: Industry Practices and Business Ethics - Industry norms do not equate to established business ethics, particularly in emerging sectors where practices are still evolving [9] - The prevalence of password code sharing among platforms may reflect a chaotic phase rather than an accepted ethical standard [9] Group 7: Legal Boundaries of Data Acquisition - The legal framework for data acquisition emphasizes the need for compliance with ethical standards and the protection of proprietary data [10][11] - Unauthorized data scraping can constitute unfair competition, necessitating regulatory oversight to protect data rights [11] Group 8: Tolerance Obligations Among Platforms - While platforms may have a tolerance obligation for link-sharing, this does not permit unrestricted access to user relationship data [12] - Unauthorized sharing of user relationship data through incentivized password code sharing harms both the data-holding platform and user privacy, warranting regulatory intervention [12]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China released its first batch of guiding cases focused on data rights protection, addressing key issues such as data ownership, utilization of data products, personal information protection, and the delivery of online platform accounts [1][3] - A notable case involved a technology company suing a cultural media company for unfair competition due to unauthorized data scraping from its app, resulting in a court ruling that ordered the cultural company to pay 5 million RMB in damages [2] - The guiding cases highlight the increasing number of data-related legal disputes, with the number of such cases doubling from 2021 to 2024, indicating a growing trend in data rights litigation [4] Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court's release of guiding cases marks a significant step in addressing data rights and related legal issues in the digital economy [1][3] - The case of data scraping illustrates the legal complexities surrounding data ownership and the implications for app operators in terms of competition and intellectual property rights [2] - The recent amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, effective from October 15, 2025, will further clarify the legal framework for data rights and unfair competition [3] Group 2 - The rise in data-related legal disputes reflects the broader trend of increased competition among online platforms, leading to more conflicts over data ownership and profit distribution [4] - The court's recognition of user rights in personal information collection emphasizes the importance of consent and transparency in data practices [3][4] - The growing number of cases indicates a need for companies to be more vigilant in their data handling practices to avoid legal repercussions [4]