Competition Law Analysis Of The Tmall’s New Regulations

Tmall is trying to increase technical services annual fee and consumers deposit to ahigher range in the new year, some small businesses have to withdraw from Tmall due to thehigh cost. Small businesses show their demands and dissatisfaction through maliciousbehavior,such as “buying goods, bad evaluation, and refusing payment”. Goods from bigbusinessmen are forced off the shelf because of these behaviors. And in the end, it burst outnew regulatory events of Tmall. Having increased the price of services, and it causes smallbusinesses exit from the mall. buse of market dominance, refers to companies with dominantmarket position excluding competitors or taking unfair trade practices. China’s Anti-monopolyLaw has made a clear prohibition on abuse of market dominance.The deep-seated problems behind the events is whether Tmall which plays an importantrole in the area of electronic commerce has violated the prohibition provisions ofAnti-monopoly Law. Whether Small businesses can protect themselves legally. Compared totraditional economic areas and new internet economy, Tmall has shown its uniqueness whichI will analysis later. This uniqueness can not be subject to the regulation of our existingAnti-monopoly Law, so it is necessary to improve China’s Anti-monopoly Law. Puttingforward legislative proposals to regulate the field of electronic commerce can meet thedemands of small businesses, protect fair trade and maintain market order. What’s more, it isin line with the value of the target of the Anti-monopoly Laws.The paper is divided into five parts: the first part is the case introduction, including thedevelopment and the present results, at the same time focusing on the legal issues involved inthe case. The second part is the anti-monopoly analysis of Tmall’s new regulatory acts. Firstly,the author determines the scope of the relevant market according to the relevant productmarket, the relevant time market and relevant geographic market. Secondly, the abuse ofmarket dominant position must have the premise that the behavior subject must have adominant market position, which should be how to identify the market dominant position ofTmall in the case. Finally, combine our existing antimonopoly law on the prohibition of abuseof dominant market position of the relevant provisions on Tmall behavior identification. Thethird part is Tmall’s new regulatory events challenge the existing anti-monopoly law. First discuss the need of regulating Tmall’s new regulatory acts by antimonopoly law, namelyTmall’s new regulatory events damage the antimonopoly laws intend to protect the legalinterests and the pursuit of value targets. Secondly, the author will combine the anti-monopolylaw with the case to explain the limitations in our anti-monopoly law, and finally proposed thereflection of the limitations of our anti-monopoly law. The fourth part is the perfection of ourantimonopoly legislation, the laws exist in principle and framework, as well as in thetraditional market economy conditions, but to network economic environment with newfeatures, how to improve the legislation to regulate the abuse of market dominance of Tmall.This section will consider the particularity of the case, then put forward a sound proposal totraditional recognized standards, put forward the improvement and refinement of theanti-monopoly law to adapt to the emergence and development of new behavior, and provideguidance and basis for enforcement and practical application. The fifth part is the conclusionpart, abstracting viewpoint and conclusion of this case study.