记者：李代祥、朱斯哲、刘雅萱 北京市市场监督管理局近日组织12家火车票网络销售业务主流平台，围绕群众反映强烈的网络销售火车 票突出问题召开行政约谈会。 消息一出，网民直呼"干得漂亮""大快人心"！ 春运回家，买票是大事。这些尽享了互联网红利的商业平台，本应给旅客出行提供更便捷、更高效、更 省心的服务。哪承想，部分平台夹带一己私利，把购票的难点当成卖点，把旅客的焦虑做成生意。 部分平台无视甚至放弃主体责任与社会责任，利用人们回家抢票的迫切心情，推出一系列"吸睛"的付费 服务和"免责"的增值服务。各种陷阱套路，让消费者一不留神就掉进了他们精心设置的坑里。 部分平台把铁路12306原本就有的免费候补服务，包装成需要付费购买的"插队特权"，明示或者暗示"购 买加速包可以优先购票""能提高购票成功率""不付费就抢不到票"，如此等等，诱导消费者上当受骗。 实际情况是，第三方平台把消费者的买票订单提交到12306，并不能改变购票、候补顺序，根本就不存 在"优先""加速"的可能。花钱让第三方平台代为抢票，白白花钱不说，反而可能耽误行程，所谓的"加 速包"成了事实上的"添堵包"。 有网友讲述了自己上当的经历。他在某第三方平台购 ...

胜利月报1月 V VICTORY 胜利 SECURITIES 证券 SINCE 1970s 胜利证券获颁2025「开心企业」标志 蝉联四年深耕职场幸福感 凭 借 营 造 和 谐、 积 极 工 作 环 境 的 卓 越 表 现 , 胜 利 证 券 再 次 获 颁 2 0 2 5 年 度 「 开 心 企 业 』 标 志 。 这 是 公 司 自 2 0 2 2 年 起 ， 连 续 第 四 年 获 此 殊 荣 ， 充 分 彰 显 了 胜 利 证 券 对 提 升 员 工 福 该 计 划 由 香 港 提 升 快 乐 指 数 基 金 主 办 、 香 港 中 华 厂 商 联 合 会 执 行 ， 旨 在 推 广 「 开 心 工 作 间 」 理 念 ， 携 手 各 界 提 升 香 港 人 的 工 作 快 乐 水 平 。 胜 利 证 券 始 终 秉 持 「 以 人 为 本 」 的 核 心 价 值 ， 将 「 企 业 关 爱 、 智 慧 、 韧 力 及 动 力 」 深 度 融 入 日 常 管 理 。 公 司 推 行 一 系 列 具 体 措 施 ， 包 括 优 化 灵 活 办 公 安 排 ， 协 助 员 工 达 成 工 作 与 生 活 ...

Group 1 - The article highlights the issue of ticket purchasing platforms employing deceptive pricing strategies, such as showing a lower initial price that increases during payment due to hidden service fees [2][3] - It describes the "price sorting trap," where platforms list packages with service fees as the lowest price, misleading consumers into believing they are getting a deal [2] - The article also points out "visual display deception," where platforms use design tactics to highlight paid options while downplaying standard booking choices, leading to consumer confusion [2] Group 2 - The underlying motivation for these practices is the platforms' profit-seeking nature, as they aim to maximize revenue through upselling additional services due to limited earnings from basic ticket sales [3] - Current regulations lack clear definitions and penalties for misleading practices like "price sorting deception" and "visual design inducement," making it difficult to hold platforms accountable [3] - The article calls for regulatory action to establish clearer standards for consumer protection and emphasizes the need for platforms to focus on improving user experience rather than employing deceptive tactics [3]

Core Insights - The 15th National Games has generated significant economic activity, with licensed merchandise sales reaching 680 million yuan as of November 15, marking a record in both quantity and variety of products [3][7] - The event has led to a 26% year-on-year increase in flight bookings to Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhuhai, and a 20% increase in overall cultural tourism consumption in Guangzhou [8][9] - The mascots "Xiyangyang" and "Lerongrong" have become popular cultural icons, driving high demand for related merchandise, with some products seeing price increases on secondary markets [6][4] Merchandise and Sales - The event attracted 33 licensed manufacturers and 44 licensed retailers, resulting in over 2,800 approved licensed products across 20 categories, the highest in history [3][6] - The popularity of the mascots has led to long queues and limited availability of certain merchandise, with some items selling out quickly [4][6] - The Guangzhou Cultural Group reported over 500 products for sale, with expectations of continued high demand for at least another two weeks [6] Tourism and Economic Impact - The event has spurred the development of tourism packages that combine event tickets with local attractions, enhancing the "ticket root economy" into a broader tourism experience [8][9] - Companies like Lingnan Holdings and Ctrip are leveraging the event's popularity to create integrated tourism products, promoting a seamless experience from event attendance to local exploration [8][9] - The Guangdong government has initiated a consumption season with a budget of 3.5 billion yuan to stimulate local spending, further supporting the tourism and cultural sectors [10] Future Prospects - The integration of sports, culture, and tourism is seen as a sustainable growth model for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, with ongoing efforts to enhance infrastructure and cooperation among the three regions [10] - The event is expected to serve as a model for future cultural and sports tourism initiatives, potentially establishing the area as a world-class destination [10]

Core Points - The Supreme Court's ruling on a case involving "ticket grabbing software" has garnered significant attention, marking the first instance in China where such software is recognized as constituting unfair competition [1] - The case clarifies the illegal nature and dangers of "ticket grabbing" behavior, serving as a warning to sellers of such software and providing a legal precedent for ticketing entities affected by these practices [1][2] Group 1 - The plaintiff in the case is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency, while the defendant sold "ticket grabbing" software on a second-hand shopping platform, which simulated human operations to increase the chances of successful ticket purchases [1] - The software's operation does not represent technological innovation but rather undermines fair competition by providing users with an unfair advantage in purchasing tickets [2] - The legal framework, specifically Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, prohibits operators from using technical means to disrupt the normal operation of other businesses' online products or services, which the court found applicable in this case [2] Group 2 - The legal implications of this case extend beyond individual instances, offering insights into combating broader ticketing fraud issues [3] - Ticketing entities have two main legal avenues for recourse: filing lawsuits against sellers of ticket grabbing software or reporting to market regulatory authorities for enforcement actions [3] - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to proactively address ticket grabbing behaviors rather than waiting for complaints, enhancing oversight to eliminate the conditions that allow such software to thrive [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has ruled a case of "unfair competition by ticket grabbing software," marking a significant precedent in protecting fair market practices in the ticketing industry [1][2] Group 1: Case Overview - The plaintiff is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency, while the defendant sold ticket grabbing "plug-in" software on a second-hand shopping platform [1] - This case is the first of its kind in China to determine that ticket grabbing software constitutes unfair competition, highlighting its implications for maintaining a healthy ticket purchasing order and market competition environment [1] Group 2: Market Competition Impact - The defendant's actions severely disrupt the fair competition environment, as ticketing platforms invest substantial resources to create stable and fair purchasing systems [1] - The use of ticket grabbing software gives users an unfair advantage, disadvantaging consumers who follow the rules and purchase tickets through normal channels, thus harming their rights [1] - The presence of such software increases operational costs for ticketing platforms, leading to excessive order requests that can overwhelm systems, slow response times, and even risk system crashes [1] Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The Anti-Unfair Competition Law explicitly prohibits operators from using technical means to disrupt the normal operation of other operators' legitimate network products or services, making the defendant's actions a clear case of unfair competition [2] - This case serves as a reference for combating the online black and gray market, alerting those involved in ticket grabbing services and software development [2] - There is a need for collaborative efforts to maintain a fair ticket purchasing order, with regulatory bodies enhancing oversight and ticketing platforms improving their technical defenses against such software [2]

Core Viewpoint - The case of "unfair competition by ticket-snatching software" has gained attention following the Supreme People's Court's release of typical intellectual property cases, highlighting the legal implications of software that manipulates ticket purchasing processes [1] Group 1: Case Overview - The plaintiff is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency involved in various ticket sales, including concerts, sports events, dramas, and family exhibitions [1] - The defendant, Zheng Mouzhong, sold ticket-snatching "plug-in" software on a second-hand shopping platform, which was designed to enhance the speed of order information entry and increase the likelihood of successful ticket purchases on the plaintiff's app [1] Group 2: Technical Aspects - The developed ticket-snatching software utilizes technical means to simulate human operations, allowing for rapid submission of ticket orders [1] - This software can repeatedly submit requests in a short time frame, significantly boosting the chances of securing tickets on the plaintiff's platform [1]