一位业内专家对记者表示，中小旅游商家在面对平台时常常处于相对弱势地位。诸如"二选一"、高佣 金、算法不透明、调价工具强制使用等行为，本质上是平台利用流量和数据优势对商家进行约束与控 制。 "2025年以来，可以看到监管的重点主要落在要求平台尊重商家自主定价权、开放平台环境、建立公平 透明的合作机制上。监管的根本目的不是限制企业发展，而是引导其'向善'、合规经营。平台应通过技 术赋能供应链、提升服务质量、保障数据使用透明，在商家、消费者与平台自身之间建立可持续的平衡 关系。"上述专家表示。 值得注意的是，从具体个案调查到完善顶层制度设计，平台经济常态化监管的框架正持续健全。近日， 市场监管总局和国家网信办联合发布《网络交易平台规则监督管理办法》（以下简称《办法》），聚焦 网络交易平台经营者（以下简称"平台"），结合近年来监管实践，以平台规则为切入点，进一步压紧压 实平台责任。 （来源：经济参考报） 近日，国家市场监管总局对一家头部在线旅游（OTA）平台正式启动反垄断立案调查，此举被视为在春 节、寒假旅游旺季前给行业敲响的一记警钟。事实上，2025年以来，针对OTA平台的监管已从个案约谈 升级为系统性的"组合拳" ...

携程被反垄断调查事件过去一周。还有人在揣测，时值春节假期旅游旺季，监管部门狠狠敲打OTA"霸 主"的用意何在，携程是不是犯了更大的不可告人的事。我们不想讨论其他，就想问问像携程这样的平 台型企业，如何做大但不作恶？ 国家市场监督管理总局的公告显示，监管部门依法对携程集团涉嫌滥用市场支配地位实施垄断行为立案 调查。资本市场迅速对这一确定性风险做出反应。携程美股公告当晚股价重挫17%。次日，携程港股跌 幅超19%，创下自2021年香港二次上市以来的最大单日跌幅。 这并非一起孤立的突发事件，而是监管压力长期累积后的集中释放。从2025年8月贵州监管局的约谈， 到9月郑州针对"调价助手"算法的合规问询，再到年底云南省旅游民宿行业协会发起的集体维权，针对 OTA（在线旅游）头部平台的合规包围圈在过去半年内已显现收紧之势。 作为绝对的行业龙头，携程在掌控高星酒店与机票核心供给的同时，逐渐陷入了商家与消费者双边怨声 载道的困境，矛盾积累，最终触发了监管部门的反垄断调查。 资本意志下的并购扩张 2026年这场监管风暴的种子，实际上埋藏于十年前行业格局的一次剧烈震荡。2015年，中国OTA市场经 历了两次决定性并购，直接造成了 ...

第一条，是平台企业利润高企与"实体经济优先"导向的冲突。与传统行业的垄断不一样，平台企业 的垄断往往不是为了从用户身上赚取超额利润。他们信奉"羊毛出在猪身上"，给用户的价格越低、服务 越好，用户黏性就越大，进而增强平台对商家的话语权，流量费和佣金就挣得越多。所以，平台往往把 用户当上帝，转头从商家身上多挣钱。当携程被调查时，还有不少用户因为"服务好"为携程说好话，也 从侧面证明了平台依托用户获得的议价能力。 然而，这种"流量至上、成本转嫁"的模式，隐患越来越大。自从电商平台出现，平台冲击实体经济 就一直是个热门话题。商家交的流量费虽然高，但只要挣得不少，还能撑得住。问题是，商家身上 的"羊毛"是有限的，经不住平台持续狠薅。 以携程为例，其2025年前三季度的净利润达290亿元，而据媒体统计，同期整个A股旅游链各子板 块净利润合计也才约190亿元。就算剔除非经常性收入，平台的"烈火烹油"与酒店、航司、旅行社等实 体企业的经营困境，对比依然刺眼，也不符合2025年中央经济工作会议强调的"推动平台企业和平台内 经营者、劳动者共赢发展"的要求。 第二条红线更关键。平台利用流量和技术优势，制定规则、挤压商家利润，表面看 ...

Core Viewpoint - The antitrust investigation serves as a critical opportunity for the overall transformation of the platform economy, emphasizing the need for technological innovation to reduce costs and improve efficiency while ensuring fair profit distribution among all stakeholders in the platform ecosystem [1][4]. Group 1: Antitrust Investigation Context - The first antitrust case of 2026 targets Ctrip, with prior indications of issues such as "choose one from two" and technical price intervention being flagged by market regulators [2]. - The investigation suggests that Ctrip's business practices may have already been deemed problematic, raising concerns about potential penalties and their impact on future profitability and business models [2]. Group 2: Policy Implications - Ctrip's situation highlights a conflict between high platform profits and the "real economy first" directive, as platforms often profit from merchants rather than users, leading to a concerning trend of cost transfer from users to merchants [3]. - Ctrip's net profit for the first three quarters of 2025 reached 29 billion yuan, while the total net profit of the entire A-share tourism chain was approximately 19 billion yuan, illustrating the stark contrast between platform profits and the struggles of traditional businesses [3]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Future Directions - The use of pricing tools by platforms like Ctrip creates a vicious cycle for merchants, forcing them into price wars that undermine profitability, which is contrary to the goal of fostering a healthy competitive environment [4]. - The investigation is not only about antitrust but also addresses the issue of "involution" in competition, aiming to create a new ecosystem where all parties can share development benefits through genuine value creation and fair profit distribution [4].

Group 1 - The core issue of the investigation against Ctrip is related to its high profits conflicting with the "real economy first" directive, highlighting the tension between platform monopolies and fair market practices [1] - Ctrip's practices, such as the "price adjustment assistant" that pressures hotels to follow suit in pricing, exemplify the "involution" that the policies aim to address, leading to a detrimental cycle for the entire industry [1] - The investigation serves as a critical opportunity for the overall transformation of the platform economy, emphasizing that antitrust actions are intended to promote innovation and ensure fair competition among all market participants [2] Group 2 - The investigation into Ctrip reflects a broader trend of increasing regulatory scrutiny on platform enterprises, necessitating a shift towards creating genuine incremental value through technological innovation and fair profit distribution [1] - The evolving regulatory landscape and the awakening of various stakeholders' rights are reshaping the competitive environment for platform companies, urging them to adapt and innovate [1]

Group 1 - The central government emphasizes the importance of balancing development and regulation in the platform economy, aiming to enhance the governance system and regulatory standards [1] - The State Administration for Market Regulation has initiated an investigation into Ctrip Group for alleged monopolistic behavior, marking a significant step in promoting fair competition in the digital market [1][2] - The investigation reflects the government's strong stance against monopolistic practices and its commitment to creating a fair competitive environment for various business entities [2] Group 2 - The online travel and accommodation industry is a crucial sector within the platform economy, facing issues such as forced exclusive partnerships and price manipulation, which have raised public concern [3] - The platform economy ecosystem consists of platform enterprises, operators, and consumers, with the need for platforms to consider the interests of all stakeholders to ensure sustainable development [3] - The investigation serves as a response to long-standing concerns and aims to foster a win-win ecosystem that promotes healthy development in the platform economy [3] Group 3 - The revised Anti-Monopoly Law in 2022 includes "encouraging innovation" as a legislative goal, aiming to shift large platform enterprises from a focus on scale to one on technological innovation and service optimization [4] - Effective antitrust enforcement is crucial for breaking down monopolistic barriers and preventing companies from stifling innovation through their advantages [4] - The investigation seeks to uncover potential monopolistic behaviors in the online travel industry, aiming to create a more diverse and inclusive innovation ecosystem [4]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around Ctrip facing potential penalties due to antitrust investigations, with estimates suggesting fines could range from 533 million to 5.33 billion yuan based on 2024 revenue, and possibly exceeding 6.5 billion yuan when considering 2025 projections [1] - The focus should not only be on the fines but also on the legal responsibilities that may require Ctrip to alter its current profit model and rules, as well as the potential for confiscation of illegal gains, which could exceed the fines calculated based on sales revenue [1] - The complexity of calculating "illegal gains" is highlighted, as distinguishing between illegal and legal income poses significant challenges, with past antitrust cases showing a lack of precedents for confiscating platform companies' illegal gains [1] Group 2 - From a legal perspective, Ctrip may be involved in three types of market dominance abuse related to small and medium-sized merchants, including unfair pricing practices and unreasonable transaction conditions, particularly concerning its pricing assistant mechanism and high commission rates [2] - Ctrip's practices may also violate consumer protection laws, such as imposing unreasonable conditions on transactions and differential treatment of trading partners under similar conditions [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese online travel agency Ctrip is facing an antitrust investigation by the State Administration for Market Regulation, leading to significant declines in its stock prices and market capitalization, raising concerns about its monopolistic practices and profitability [1][2]. Financial Performance - In 2025, Ctrip reported a revenue of 47.1 billion RMB and a net profit of 29.1 billion RMB for the first three quarters, averaging a daily net profit of 100 million RMB [1]. - Ctrip's cash and short-term investments reached 80.4 billion RMB, and it maintained a gross profit margin exceeding 80%, significantly higher than Alibaba and Meituan, which were penalized for monopolistic behavior [1][2]. Market Dominance - Ctrip holds over 70% of the market share in the online travel sector, with more than 100 million monthly active users, granting it substantial pricing power and control over the industry [2]. - The company has been accused of imposing unfair practices on merchants, including forced price adjustments through its "Price Adjustment Assistant" system, which undermines merchants' pricing autonomy [2][3]. Competitive Practices - Ctrip has been reported to engage in "exclusive agreements" that threaten competition by penalizing merchants who do not comply, effectively stifling market vitality [3]. - The platform's commission and hidden fees can account for nearly 40% of a merchant's revenue, illustrating the financial burden placed on businesses [3]. Consumer Impact - Ctrip's pricing algorithms reportedly lead to higher prices for long-term users, creating a scenario where loyal customers end up paying more, which has resulted in numerous complaints regarding hidden fees and refund difficulties [3][4]. - The monopolistic practices of Ctrip have led to a situation where the benefits of the tourism industry's recovery are not shared equitably among consumers and merchants, with the majority of profits being siphoned off by the platform [4]. Regulatory Response - The ongoing investigation by the government is seen as a necessary step to dismantle Ctrip's monopoly and reshape industry regulations to ensure fair distribution of profits within the tourism sector [4].

Core Viewpoint - Ctrip Group is under investigation by the State Administration for Market Regulation for alleged abuse of market dominance, marking a new phase of regulatory scrutiny in the online travel agency (OTA) sector [1][4]. Group 1: Investigation Details - The investigation is based on preliminary findings and focuses on Ctrip's alleged monopolistic practices [1][4]. - This is not the first time Ctrip has faced regulatory scrutiny; it has been previously questioned by local market regulators regarding similar issues [1][4]. - Specific concerns include the "choose one from two" practice and the use of technology to interfere with merchant pricing [1][4][8]. Group 2: Allegations of Monopolistic Behavior - Allegations against Ctrip include requiring certain merchants to delist their products from other OTA platforms [3][9]. - Ctrip is accused of using a dynamic algorithm system called "Price Adjustment Assistant" to monitor and adjust merchant prices in real-time to maintain the lowest prices online [3][9]. - Ctrip holds a leading position in the Chinese OTA market, with a market share of 56% in the core hotel and travel market as of the end of 2024 [3][9]. Group 3: Market Reaction and Financial Performance - Following the announcement of the investigation, Ctrip's stock price fell at the end of trading on January 14, coinciding with a strong recovery phase in the online travel industry [3][10]. - Ctrip reported a year-on-year increase in net operating revenue for Q3 2025, with strong performance in international business [10]. Group 4: Regulatory Trends and Future Implications - The investigation reflects a broader trend of increasing regulatory constraints on platform companies, aimed at ensuring fair operational practices [4][11]. - New regulations are set to protect the pricing autonomy of operators and standardize platform rule-making, addressing the "soft power" of platform operators [10][11]. - The outcome of the investigation and its subsequent impact on the industry remain to be seen, as the regulatory environment continues to evolve [5][11].

Core Viewpoint - Ctrip Group is under investigation by the State Administration for Market Regulation for alleged monopolistic practices, including requiring merchants to choose between platforms and automatic price adjustments [4][5]. Group 1: Investigation and Complaints - The investigation was initiated following complaints from local regulatory bodies and businesses regarding Ctrip's alleged monopolistic behavior in the online travel agency (OTA) sector [5]. - The Yunnan Province Tourism Homestay Industry Association reported multiple complaints from its members about Ctrip's practices, including "choose one" clauses and unfair trading conditions [5][6]. - The association, which has nearly 7,000 member hotels and homestays, is collecting evidence of Ctrip's alleged monopolistic actions [6]. Group 2: Market Practices - Ctrip's practices reportedly include requiring certain merchants to delist their products from other OTA platforms, which raises concerns about market access for smaller platforms [6][7]. - Ctrip has adjusted its display rules for hotel listings, removing visual distinctions between "gold" and "special" merchant labels, which previously indicated a level of certification [7]. - A Ctrip representative indicated that the platform's pricing algorithm automatically adjusts merchant prices based on competitor pricing, which can lead to what is termed "price locking" [8]. Group 3: Market Share and Competition - As of the end of 2024, Ctrip's market share in the core hotel and travel market is estimated to be 56%, and when including its strategic investment in Tongcheng Travel, the "Ctrip system" holds nearly 70% of the domestic OTA market [9]. - This market dominance significantly surpasses competitors such as Meituan (approximately 13%), Fliggy (around 8%), and Douyin (about 3%) [9].