Core Viewpoint - The Italian Competition and Market Authority has imposed a fine of €98.635 million on Apple for abusing its dominant market position, citing violations of EU regulations related to its "App Tracking Transparency" policy [1] Group 1 - The fine was announced on the 22nd and is a result of an investigation that found Apple's policy, implemented since April 2021, restricts competition [1] - Apple strongly opposes the penalty and plans to appeal the decision [1]

据报道，苹果公司强烈反对处罚决定，表示将提起上诉。 经济观察网 据央视新闻消息，12月22日，意大利竞争与市场管理局发布公告，宣布对美国苹果公司处 以9863.5万欧元（约合8.2亿元人民币）罚款，原因是苹果公司滥用市场支配地位。 公告说，调查认定苹果公司自2021年4月起实施的"应用追踪透明度"政策存在限制竞争的行为，违反了 欧盟相关规定。该政策要求第三方应用开发者在收集和关联用户广告数据时，必须通过"应用追踪透明 度"弹窗获得用户明确同意，该弹窗本身不符合隐私法规要求，并导致开发者被迫为同一目的重复征求 用户同意，损害了开发者、广告主及广告中介平台的利益。 ...

AGCM在声明中详细阐述了处罚依据。其调查结果显示，从竞争法的专业视角审视，苹果所推行的"应 用追踪透明度"（ATT）政策具有限制竞争的性质。该政策是苹果自2021年4月起，针对通过App Store分 发的第三方应用开发者所施加的iOS设备隐私规则。 【环球网科技综合报道】12月22日，据多家外媒报道，意大利竞争与市场管理局（AGCM）对外宣布了 一项重大处罚决定，对苹果公司、Apple Distribution International以及苹果意大利公司处以高达9863.5万 欧元的罚款，处罚缘由是这些公司存在滥用市场支配地位的行为。 据悉，苹果的ATT政策要求第三方应用开发者在追踪用户数据前必须获得用户明确许可，这一举措虽在 一定程度上强调了用户隐私保护，但从竞争层面看，却给众多依赖数据追踪来优化服务、精准营销的第 三方应用开发者设置了障碍。许多小型开发者因难以获取足够用户数据，在市场竞争中处于劣势，影响 了整个应用市场的公平竞争环境。（青山） ...

新华社罗马12月22日电（记者高婧妍）意大利竞争与市场管理局22日发布公告，宣布对美国苹果公司处 以9863.5万欧元罚款，原因是该公司滥用市场支配地位。 意大利竞争与市场管理局在公告中说，经调查，认定苹果公司自2021年4月起实施的"应用追踪透明 度"政策存在限制竞争的行为，违反了欧盟相关规定。 据美联社报道，苹果公司强烈反对意方处罚决定，表示将提起上诉。（完） 公告说，苹果公司的这项政策要求第三方应用开发者在收集和关联用户广告数据时，必须通过"应用追 踪透明度"弹窗获得用户明确同意，但该弹窗本身不符合隐私法规要求，导致开发者被迫为同一目的重 复征求用户同意，这将削弱其广告模式，损害开发者、广告主及广告中介平台的利益。 ...

【导读】苹果公司被意大利监管机构罚超9800万欧元 苹果公司再因涉嫌滥用市场支配地位被重罚！ 12月22日，意大利竞争与市场管理局(AGCM)发布的消息显示，苹果公司因滥用市场支配地位，被处以9863.5万欧元的罚款，约合8.1亿元人民币。对此， 苹果公司表示，强烈反对意大利反垄断监管机构的决定，并将提起上诉。 年内苹果多次被罚 值得注意的是，意大利的罚单并非个例。今年以来，苹果公司已多次收到类似罚单，这些罚单的主要原因均与其iOS生态以及App Store规则相关。 应用跟踪透明度政策存在限制竞争行为 意大利竞争与市场管理局表示，经调查认定，苹果公司的应用跟踪透明度政策(ATT)存在限制竞争行为。 意大利竞争与市场管理局指出，自2021年4月起，苹果公司针对iOS设备推行适用于应用商店第三方应用开发者的应用跟踪透明度政策(ATT)，从竞争法层 面判定具有限制性竞争本质。具体来看，第三方应用开发者若要通过苹果ATT弹窗，出于广告推广目的收集并关联用户数据，必须事先获得用户的专项授 权。然而，该弹窗的设计不符合隐私法规要求，导致开发者不得不就同一数据收集目的，向用户重复发起授权申请。 该局认定，应用跟踪透明度政 ...

编辑 ｜钉钉 12月22日，意大利反垄断监管机构表示，已对苹果公司及其两家子公司处以9860万欧元（约合1.1553亿 美元）的罚款，原因是它们涉嫌滥用市场支配地位，在iOS移动应用分发领域占据主导地位。 记者｜钱童心 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential antitrust implications of certain e-commerce platforms imposing price constraints on merchants, particularly during the "Double Eleven" shopping festival in 2025, which may constitute a form of "soft choice" behavior that restricts competition and harms consumer interests [2][3][4]. Group 1: Market Dominance and Antitrust Concerns - Platforms are reportedly enforcing rules that prevent merchants from offering lower prices on competing platforms, with penalties reaching up to 5 million yuan for non-compliance, indicating a significant market power [2]. - The determination of whether a platform holds a dominant market position involves assessing its market share, consumer loyalty, and the high switching costs for merchants, which can lead to compliance with the platform's pricing demands despite objections [2][4]. - The behavior of platforms may be classified as "soft choice," which, while not traditional exclusive trading, effectively limits merchants' pricing autonomy on other channels [3][4]. Group 2: Impact on Competition and Consumer Rights - The imposition of pricing restrictions by platforms undermines fair competition among platforms, shifting the focus from service quality and user experience to mere price competition, which can stifle market vitality [5]. - Consumers are indirectly affected as they are deprived of the opportunity to enjoy lower prices on other platforms, limiting their choice and potentially leading to a failure of the market price mechanism [5]. - The use of "soft choice" tactics in a competitive environment can have significant repercussions for all merchants and consumers, ultimately disrupting the healthy ecosystem of the e-commerce industry [5].

Core Points - The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Apple abused its market dominance from 2015 to 2020 by charging excessive commissions through the App Store, potentially facing up to £1.5 billion in damages [1][3] - The court found that Apple monopolized the iOS app distribution and in-app payment markets, forcing developers to use its payment system and pay commissions as high as 30% [3] - Apple's defense, claiming competition from the Android platform and that its fees were for user safety, was rejected by the court, which noted that these high fees ultimately increased prices for consumers [3] - Apple has announced plans to appeal the ruling, with a damages trial scheduled for November this year [3]

Core Viewpoint - The State Administration for Market Regulation has drafted the "Antitrust Guidelines for the Public Utilities Sector (Draft for Comments)" and is seeking public feedback on it [1]. Group 1: Overview of Public Utilities - Public utilities encompass a range of industries that provide essential goods or services to the public, including water supply, electricity, gas, heating, sewage treatment, waste disposal, broadcasting, and public transportation, most of which have natural monopoly characteristics [3]. Group 2: Antitrust Guidelines Purpose - The guidelines aim to address the unique characteristics and market competition rules of the public utilities sector, enhancing the scientific, targeted, and effective nature of antitrust enforcement [4]. Group 3: Identification of Antitrust Behaviors - The draft provides detailed specifications on potential monopolistic agreements in the public utilities sector, helping operators accurately identify legal risks [6]. - Horizontal monopolistic agreements are prevalent in the public utilities sector, particularly in the bottled gas industry, where operators may fix prices or divide market shares through informal agreements [8]. Group 4: Abuse of Market Dominance - The draft addresses the frequent occurrence of market dominance abuse in sectors like water, gas, electricity, and heating, detailing factors related to unfair pricing, refusal to deal, and other unreasonable trading conditions [9]. - It specifies common scenarios that may not be considered legitimate justifications for market dominance abuse, emphasizing that actions without legal basis or those claiming safety without proof are generally not justified [10][14].

Group 1 - The core issue involves a lawsuit filed by Hangzhou LeDu Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou NetEase Cloud Music Technology Co., Ltd. against SM Entertainment Co. and Kasmong (Shanghai) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. regarding the abuse of market dominance [1] - The court hearing is scheduled for August 6 at the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang Province [1] - In January, NetEase Cloud Music informed fans of SM Entertainment that due to the copyright holder's unilateral decision not to renew the contract, all songs under SM Entertainment may be removed from the platform by January 31, 2025 [2]