Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court clarifies the responsibilities regarding "traffic cheating" in the internet advertising industry, emphasizing that the advertising service provider must ensure traffic quality and adhere to anti-cheating obligations, while the advertising demand side must act in good faith [1][2]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Responsibilities - The court ruled that the advertising service provider (Company A) failed to fulfill its anti-cheating obligations, resulting in substandard traffic quality, which constitutes a fundamental breach of contract [2]. - The court dismissed all claims from Company A for payment, reinforcing the need for advertising service providers to ensure compliance with contract terms regarding traffic quality [2]. Group 2: Industry Implications - In the internet advertising business, traffic quality is a core requirement, and service providers must strictly adhere to anti-cheating clauses to avoid using false traffic [3]. - Contracts should clearly define acceptance criteria and breach responsibilities to minimize dispute risks, and advertising demand sides should vet partners' qualifications and performance capabilities [3]. - The industry should enhance data transparency and explore third-party monitoring mechanisms to combat data fraud and traffic cheating, thereby maintaining a healthy online ecosystem and protecting consumer rights [3].