Research On Judicial Referee Issues In Browser Filtering Video Advertising Behavior

With the development of the Internet economy,there are many new Internet competition behaviors that are not listed in the current judicial practice in China.Browsers filter video advertising behavior is one of them.Regarding whether browsers filter video advertising behavior constitutes unfair competition,most of the courts have a positive attitude,which is quite different from the academic community.This has led to extensive discussions in the legal practice and academic circles on the legitimacy of browser-filtered video advertising.The second-instance judgment of the “Tencent Company v.World Starlight Company Unfair Competition Case”,which has been widely watched here,completely overturned the first-instance judgment that the browser-filtered video advertisements that were highly anticipated by the academic community did not constitute unfair competition,which once again reflected the problem.There is great controversy and it also highlights the fact that the case has certain research value.Generally speaking,based on the summary of the case,the focus of the dispute,and the multi-party views,this paper analyzes the focus of the dispute in this case by means of interest measurement,and uses the case interpretation method.In order to clarify the shortcomings of the “commercial ethics” standard adopted by the courts in China for the justification of browser-filtered video advertisements,the argument is more suitable for filtering video advertisements for browsers than the “commercial ethics” standard.The law does not enumerate the legitimacy of the act.Specifically,firstly,through the induction and analysis of “Tencent Company v.World Starlight Company Unfair Competition Case” and other related cases,this paper leads to the thinking mode and common practice of Chinese courts in judging browser filtering video advertising behavior.Thinking about whether the thinking and methods used by Chinese courts in the judgment of such cases are compatible with the current market competition environment;secondly,this paper demonstrates the benefits by comparing the traditional commercial ethics methods and interest measurement methods widely used by courts in such cases.The unique advantages of the measurement method in the refereeing of such cases;finally,the discussion of changing the judicial referee thinking,the method of measuring the benefits to apply the general terms,and highlighting the “three-way superposition” interest protection pattern in the judicial judgment to promote the browser to filter video advertisements.The importance of the optimization of the judicial referee path of behavior.Of course,the case is different.The analysis of this article and the exploration of the referee's path do not seek the general conclusion that the browser filters the video advertising behavior.It only seeks to provide a relatively scientific and more appropriate "anti-justice." Judicial referee thinking and methods of competition law traits.