Research On Legal Regulation Of Resale Price Maintenance

The vertical monopoly behavior is different from the horizontal monopoly behavior that is basically uncontroversial.The vertical monopoly behavior mainly includes various vertical price limits and non-price limits,among which the vertical price limit is the focus of national anti-monopoly regulations.The vertical price limit is also called resale price maintenance.The resale price maintenance agreement may theoretically bring about the effect of restricting competition.It may also have positive effects such as improving consumer welfare and alleviating “free riding”.Moreover,as the current economic development model continues to innovate,the vertical relationship between enterprises is becoming more and more subtle,diverse,and complex.This has led to the regulation of resale price maintenance becoming a concern for the anti-monopoly theorists and practitioners.One of the problems is also a major challenge for antitrust case hearings and law enforcement activities.Looking at the current anti-monopoly law outside the domain,we find that the United States and the European Union have the most extensive influence on the regulation of resale price maintenance.The United States has gone through a development path from the per se rule to the rule of reason to today's criticism of the rule of reason.The European Union's proposed prohibition + exemption.The rules of regulation are also models that our country's anti-monopoly law draws on since the promulgation and implementation of the ?Anti-Monopoly Law?in China,it has experienced more than 10 years of development and has played an important and positive role in the development of China's market economy.China's "Anti-Monopoly Law" provides clear criteria for the definition of vertical monopoly agreements,and it also gives a list of prohibitions plus limited exemptions in principle.Article 14 of the Act clearly stipulates that operators and transaction counterparties are prohibited from reaching a vertical monopoly agreement of fixed resale price and limited minimum resale price,and at the same time,the prohibition of the operator and the counterparty of transactions from reaching a "State Council anti-monopoly law enforcement agency The other monopoly agreements that were confirmed." Article 15 of the Act stipulates in principle the conditions and conditions for the exemption of the monopoly agreement.In practice,China's courts at various levels and anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies have also accumulated certain experience through the Maotai and Wuliangye cases,infant formula milk powder cases,FAW-VW Audi and distributor price monopoly cases,Sharp State v.Johnson and Johnson cases,and Medtronic cases.However,in-depth investigation found that,as a case of resale price restriction in the medical industry,the Shanghai Higher People's Court's ruling on Sharp's lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson's case was more influenced by the rule of reason,and the National Development and Reform Commission as the main body of enforcement of resale price restriction acts,In the case of the regulation of the Medtronic case,it was in accordance with the prohibition principle and limited exemption.It can be seen that the two viewpoints have a profound impact on China's antitrust judicial practice.This article seeks to explain the principle of the prohibition principle and limited exemption provided by China's "Anti-Monopoly Law" in the current anti-monopoly practice more rationally and through the exploration of these two principles,combined with China's current market economy and judicial practice characteristics.The price of sales maintains the rationality of an analytical method that can be used to defend against illegal presumptions.At the same time,it puts forward suggestions for the use of this clause in judicial practice.It also hopes that this will bring some reference to China's antitrust practice.