Research On Litigation Cases Of Abuse Of Market Dominance By Telecom Enterprises

The antitrust law does not specify the specific judgment standards for the plaintiff’s qualification in antitrust civil litigation.In the civil litigation cases of abuse of market dominance by telecommunication companies,the court adopts a more relaxed standard for the qualification of plaintiffs and recognizes potential consumers’ plaintiff’s litigation qualifications.Given that telecommunications services are basic and extensive and that there are many difficulties for consumers to file antitrust civil lawsuits,it is reasonable to adopt loose standards for the plaintiff’s eligibility for antitrust civil lawsuits.When judging whether a case is a monopoly dispute,the court’s judgment standard is "the civil legal relationship claimed by the plaintiff",that is,the plaintiff believes that the operator’s behavior violates the anti-monopoly law and file a lawsuit accordingly,it is a monopoly dispute.However,at the trial stage,the criterion of "civil legal relationship of litigants" should be used to determine whether it is a monopoly dispute,and the legal relationship of the litigation and the behavior of the respondent operator should be basically reviewed.The definition of the relevant market is subjective,in the absence of quantitative evidence of supply and demand,it is reasonable that the court actively analyzed and defined the relevant market in 6 of 9 cases.The court tends to use both demand substitution and supply substitution analysis methods when defining the relevant market,but from the perspective of consumer protection,it is necessary to use the supply substitution analysis method with caution,and the demand substitution analysis method should be adopted.When there is more than one type of abuse of market dominance in the same case,it may be necessary to define two or more related markets.The telecommunication industry is not fully competitive,The basic telecommunications services provided by telecommunications companies have a natural monopoly.Telecommunications companies are public enterprises,but public enterprises do not necessarily have a dominant market position,it is necessary to analyze the structure and competition of the relevant market involved in the case.There are three ways to determine market dominance: direct determination,market share presumption,and public utility presumption.The determination of market dominance is the key to the success or failure of both parties’ litigation,and the evidence is extremely important.The operator was determined to have a dominant market position only in one of the nine cases,And the plaintiffs in only three cases presented evidence to prove the dominant market position of the operator,but failed to prove that the operator had a dominant market position because of the relevance and insufficient proof of the evidence.Whether the effect of eliminating or restricting competition is a prerequisite for abuse of market dominance is ambiguous in the interpretation of legislation.In the sample cases,the courts tend to think that eliminating or restricting competition is a prerequisite for abuse of market dominance.The behavior of enterprises with market dominance is inherently anti-competitive,when it comes to exploitative abuse or when the end consumer is a direct purchaser,the determination of the abuse of market dominance should not be based on the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.