Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the need to strengthen antitrust measures and promote fair competition policies as an inherent requirement for improving the socialist market economy system [1] - During the 2025 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, the Supreme People's Court released five typical antitrust cases to clarify and standardize the rules for antitrust adjudication, providing clearer behavioral guidelines for various enterprises [2][4] - The Supreme People's Court's ruling against exclusive operating rights granted to a specific company in the shared electric bike sector highlights the violation of antitrust laws and the importance of maintaining fair competition [3][4] Group 2 - The case regarding the cement association's horizontal monopoly agreement illustrates the potential for industry associations to engage in monopolistic behavior, prompting the need for clear boundaries in their operations [5][6] - The Supreme People's Court's decision in the cement association case reinforces the prohibition of industry associations from facilitating monopolistic agreements among their members [6] - The ruling clarifies that industry associations must operate within legal frameworks and cannot manipulate prices or undermine fair competition [6] Group 3 - A significant ruling addressed the rights of victims of horizontal monopolistic agreements, establishing that damages can be claimed even when contracts were signed during the period of monopolistic behavior [7][8] - The court determined that the price increases during the contract period were a result of the monopolistic agreement, allowing for the presumption of damages suffered by the victim [8] - The ruling also clarified the burden of proof regarding claims of price increases due to non-monopolistic factors, placing the onus on the monopolistic entity to provide evidence [8]

共享单车远程落锁，本意是帮忘锁的用户代关。但技术一掉链子，便利就成安全隐患。主板故障会锁， 弱网环境会锁，甚至骑久了也可能被判定"恶意占用"而锁。这些漏洞不堵，谁骑车都得提心吊胆。更何 况，用户说"落锁急停"，平台称"查无记录"，安全账岂能各算各的？关乎千万人的出行安全，容不得半 点侥幸。监管部门该出手了，把远程落锁的账算明白，为用户安全托底。 袁媛/文 张永文/图 近日，有市民向媒体反映，在骑行共享单车时，遭遇自动落锁车轮抱死，致使严重摔伤。据调查，类似 情况在多个城市发生，涉及数个共享单车平台。 ...

最高人民法院10日发布5件反垄断典型案例，涉及滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为，固定商品价格及 分割销售市场的横向垄断行为以及行业协会组织本行业的经营者从事垄断行为等重要法律问题，涵盖交 通、建材、原料药、化工等民生行业。 "共享电单车"滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争案是最高法首例认定滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的案件。 互联网租赁自行车服务提供商青某公司，以某行政审批局、某市大数据中心在该市违法设定并实施共享 电单车特许经营，构成滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争为由，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销被诉具体行政行 为。最高法二审认为，某行政审批局在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，缺乏法律依据，超越职权 范围，且在案证据不足以证明撤销被诉行为会损害国家利益和社会公共利益，判决撤销被诉行政行为。 （文章来源：人民日报） ...

Core Viewpoint - The company, Hello Bike, responded to recent reports regarding user injuries caused by automatic locking of shared bicycles, asserting that their technical team found no evidence of technical defects leading to such incidents [1] Group 1: Technical Response - Hello Bike's hardware logic for bike locks states that as long as the riding speed is above 0.5 m/s, the lock will not execute a locking command, only doing so when the bike comes to a complete stop [1] - The company identified potential causes for the locking issue, including users not closing the lock page while riding, accidental touches on the "return" button, and situations where a previous user did not lock the bike before the next user began riding [1]

Financing and Investment Progress - The company has responded to inquiries regarding financial accounting issues related to its previous fundraising projects, stating that the investment progress for the shared electric bike intelligent system project is 64.18% as of April 30, 2025, with a planned investment of 736.48 million yuan [1] - The company plans to raise no more than 840 million yuan in this financing round, which will be used entirely to supplement working capital, addressing a total funding gap of 884.76 million yuan [1] Business Operations - The company's main business segments include system operation services, shared mobility, hydrogen sales and services, smart living, and system sales, with a decline in revenue from system operation services and shared mobility, while hydrogen sales and services have shown growth [2] - The company reported continuous losses during the reporting period, with net profit attributable to the parent company being -127.16 million yuan, -164.60 million yuan, -146.92 million yuan, and -25.95 million yuan, primarily due to declining revenues and high credit impairment losses [2] - The gross margin for system operation services and shared mobility has turned negative, attributed to reduced contract amounts upon renewal and competition from dockless bike-sharing [2] Financial Position - The company has experienced fluctuations in cash balances and trading financial assets, with an increasing ratio of bad debt provisions for accounts receivable [2] - The company holds a certain amount of cash, certificates of deposit, and financial products, mainly due to net cash inflows from operating activities and funds raised from convertible bonds, although some cash is subject to restrictions on use [2] Future Plans - The company aims to actively expand its hydrogen sales and services, as well as its smart living business, leveraging synergies with the Hello Group and intensifying efforts to collect accounts receivable to reverse its loss situation [2]

新京报贝壳财经记者从嘀嗒出行方面获悉，9月9日，平台已暂停车主账号使用，并全额退回了乘客订单 费用。据平台向车主、乘客双方了解，事发当天警方已完成笔录及初步协调，因乘客接种疫苗需分次完 成，车主向警方表态，待乘客后续治疗完成后赔付其医药费及相应误工费用。 【#乘客坐顺风车被车主自带狐獴咬伤# 嘀嗒回应：已暂停账号使用】 9月9日，上海一名乘客在社交平台发视频称，自己乘坐嘀嗒出行顺风车时发现一只野生动物在车主身上 活动。不久后，这只动物跳到后排座位，将她的双手和右脚咬伤、撕伤。 9月10日，这名乘客告诉新京报贝壳财经记者，她昨天已经报警并前往医院就医。"咬伤我的动物是狐 獴，是车主饲养并携带上车的。" 新京报贝壳财经记者了解到，狐獴，学名是细尾獴，别名海岛猫鼬，灰沼狸等。2015年，《世界自然保 护联盟(IUCN)濒危物种红色名录》将其列为无危（LC），有一定的科研价值。细尾獴是常见的蜱虫疾 病的宿主，还是狂犬病的载体，危害人类与家畜健康。 上海警方称，因车主和乘客就发生抓咬原因描述不一致，目前警方已介入协调处理，平台方嘀嗒出行会 持续关注并妥善处理。（贝壳财经） 6 @贝壳财经 ば @贝壳财经 11 111 ...

Core Points - Recent incidents of shared bicycles automatically locking during rides have raised safety concerns, with at least 41 reported cases in cities like Beijing and Shanghai [1][2] - A user in Shanghai suffered three fractures due to a fall caused by an automatic lock, highlighting the potential dangers of this issue [1] - Shared bicycle companies have acknowledged the existence of a remote locking feature but deny that it caused the accidents, attributing them to possible chain malfunctions instead [1][2] Industry Response - The lack of urgency from shared bicycle companies regarding the automatic locking incidents is concerning, as they seem to downplay the severity of the situation [1] - Companies must take immediate action to investigate the causes of these incidents and implement safety measures, such as disabling the locking feature while the bicycle is in motion [2] - Regulatory measures in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing have increased scrutiny on shared bicycles, including designated no-ride and no-parking zones, which may lead companies to consider remote locking as a cost-saving measure [2]

Core Points - A female passenger was injured by a wild animal, specifically a meerkat, while using a ride-sharing service on September 4 [1][3] - The ride-sharing platform, Dida Chuxing, has suspended the driver's account and refunded the passenger's fare [2] - The police are involved in the investigation due to conflicting accounts from the driver and the passenger regarding the incident [4] Platform Response - Dida Chuxing has taken immediate action by suspending the driver's account and issuing a full refund to the passenger [2] - The driver has agreed to cover the passenger's medical expenses and lost wages after the passenger completes her treatment [2] Animal Behavior and Legal Context - Meerkats, while generally social animals, can exhibit aggressive behavior when kept alone, which may lead to attacks on perceived outsiders [12] - The legality of keeping meerkats as pets in China is confirmed, provided they are sourced legally and not classified as endangered [9][10] Public Reaction - Online comments reflect a consensus that the driver acted irresponsibly by bringing a wild animal into a vehicle with passengers [5][6] - Concerns were raised about the safety implications of allowing such animals in ride-sharing services [8][9]

来源：中国新闻网 编辑：张嘉怡 一审法院判决驳回青某公司诉讼请求。青某公司不服，提起上诉。 最高人民法院二审认为，某行政审批局、某市大数据中心在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，并将 之授予某市交某智慧城市开发有限公司，实际上是设定和授予共享电单车特许经营权，构成行政机关行 使行政权力限定交易，缺乏合法性和合理性，且具有排除、限制竞争效果，构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用 行政权力排除、限制竞争行为。 二审认为，鉴于某行政审批局在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，缺乏法律依据，超越职权范围， 且在案证据不足以证明撤销被诉行为会损害国家利益和社会公共利益，被诉行政行为应予撤销。 故终审判决，撤销一审判决，改判撤销在某市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权并将之授予交某公司的行 政行为。 最高法表示，该案对明确滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的认定标准，依法规制滥用行政权力排除、限制 竞争行为，推动真正放开市场准入，纵深推进全国统一大市场建设，增进市场活力具有积极意义。(完) 行政机关设定共享电单车特许经营权，最高法判了 中新网北京9月10日电(记者 高萌)9月10日，最高人民法院发布5件反垄断典型案例，其中包括最高法首 例认定滥用行 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company, 哈啰, is facing criticism from employees regarding the mandatory wearing of company uniforms, which some find unattractive and inappropriate for a tech company [2][5]. Group 1: Company Policy - The company has implemented a policy requiring employees to wear uniforms, which is legally permissible under certain conditions as per the Labor Contract Law [5]. - The Labor Contract Law allows employers to establish rules regarding work attire, provided they follow legal procedures [5]. - However, the company cannot impose fines on employees for not wearing uniforms, as this is not permitted under labor laws [5]. Group 2: Company Background - 哈啰 was established in September 2016 and is headquartered in Shanghai, initially starting with a bike-sharing business [5]. - The company aims to provide convenient transportation and better inclusive living services, currently focusing on mobile transportation services and emerging local services [5]. - 哈啰 has also entered the Robotaxi market, indicating its expansion into new technological areas [5].