十四届全国人大常委会第十六次会议6月27日表决通过新修订的反不正当竞争法，自2025年10月15日起 施行。新修订的反不正当竞争法规定，大型企业等经营者不得拖欠中小企业的货物、工程、服务等账 款。 新修订的反不正当竞争法包括总则、不正当竞争行为、对涉嫌不正当竞争行为的调查、法律责任、附则 五章。这部法律规定，国家健全完善反不正当竞争规则制度，加强反不正当竞争执法司法，维护市场竞 争秩序，健全统一、开放、竞争、有序的市场体系。 审议过程中，常委会委员建议增加规定公平竞争审查制度 新修订的反不正当竞争法对大型企业等经营者滥用自身优势地位扰乱公平竞争秩序作了规定。其中明 确，大型企业等经营者不得滥用自身资金、技术、交易渠道、行业影响力等方面的优势地位，要求中小 企业接受明显不合理的付款期限、方式、条件和违约责任等交易条件，拖欠中小企业的货物、工程、服 务等账款。 在审议过程中，围绕规范政府和企业行为、治理"内卷式"竞争，有的常委会组成人员、全国人大代表提 出，建议增加规定公平竞争审查制度，并修改完善治理平台"内卷式"竞争方面的规定。宪法和法律委员 会经研究，建议增加规定："国家建立健全公平竞争审查制度，依法加强公平 ...

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of Martin v. United States, allowing the Martin family to pursue their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the government for a wrong-house raid in 2017 [1] - The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes that the FTCA provides an exclusive remedy for damages claims arising from federal employees' official conduct, and the Supremacy Clause cannot be used as a defense in FTCA lawsuits [3] Summary by Sections Case Background - The Martin family filed FTCA claims against the government for assault, battery, and false imprisonment after FBI agents mistakenly raided their home, resulting in traumatic experiences for the family [2] - The Eleventh Circuit previously upheld the dismissal of the case, citing that the agents' actions did not violate "clearly established" law and granted total governmental immunity [2] Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court's decision does not determine the applicability of the "discretionary function" exception in this case but mandates the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider the case [3] - Justice Sotomayor highlighted the importance of the 1974 amendment to the FTCA, which was intended to provide a cause of action for victims of wrong-house raids [3] Implications for Law Enforcement Accountability - The ruling reinforces that law enforcement officers cannot evade accountability for their actions, particularly in cases where Congress has explicitly provided for redress [5] - NCLA representatives expressed that the decision is a significant step towards ensuring that innocent civilians have meaningful remedies against federal law enforcement abuses [4][5]