Reprinted from Netease Technology (text/You Yunting)
Recently, the competition of the Chinese Internet giants for meddling has fluctuate again. This time, the protagonist is Tencent. They have stopped the application interfaces of Alipay Red Packet, Shrimp Network, and NetEase Cloud Music in the WeChat circle of friends. This means that WeChat users can't publish Alipay Red Packet, Shrimps, and NetEase Cloud music content to WeChat's friends through the mobile client. For the above-mentioned bans, Tencent’s external position is basically carried out in an implicit manner: It implies that Alipay's red envelope sharing in the circle of friends is a malicious circle of friends, disrupting the circle of friends, and blocking Alipay red packets and Alibaba.com. Access to WeChat payment on the platform.For blocking the shrimp network, Netease cloud music, it is implied because of its existence of pirated content. In this regard, I discussed in a legal WeChat group that Tencent's bans were not justified, and their statement was an excuse to crack down on competitors.Another group of friends disagreed with my view, saying: "Hit a competitor" is not the intention of competition?A company's choice of who to open its software interface to is a matter that should not be blamed.Even if the value of the platform is reduced, it is an autonomous choice and there is a natural market for adjustment.This friend's point of view is based on the theory of market economy: WeChat is Tencent's product. If Tencent wants to crack down on competitors and is willing to suffer the loss of WeChat user experience, it is certainly Tencent's right. However, I do not agree with the above view: Tencent’s actions and statements in external statements are unacceptable from the perspective of rationality and legitimacy.In terms of rationality: If you are a common user of WeChat, shrimp, and NetEase cloud music, you want to share a song with friends on WeChat through shrimp or Netease cloud music and find that it is banned by Tencent. Do you think this is irrational? If you are an application developer, you find that Tencent prohibits users from sharing your services on WeChat in order to protect their products. The reason is malicious marketing, but Tencent itself has been doing the same thing on WeChat. Would you think about it? unreasonable? You are the operator of a music application. Although you have spent tens of millions or even hundreds of millions on music copyrights, Tencent claims that because you have a small percentage of unauthorized songs in your music library, you banned you in WeChat on the grounds of piracy. The proportion of pirated songs in actual QQ music is about the same as or even higher than yours. Do you think this is unreasonable? Well, after listening to the above example, if you still think that the market economy is a system of natural selection and survival of the fittest, WeChat is the site of Tencent, and its existence is reasonable, so Tencent can be captive on WeChat, so let's discuss Some questions about legitimacy.The market economy is a free competition economy, but freedom is also under the legal framework. Therefore, Tencent's freedom should not violate the preconditions of the law, but Tencent's willfulness blocks Alipay, shrimp and Netease cloud music in WeChat. Actual violations of many laws and regulations have affected the legitimate rights and interests of hundreds of millions of individuals and enterprises. Illegal one: Consumer rights of hundreds of millions of users have been violated. What is the relationship between WeChat users and Tencent?Service contract relationship.When users join WeChat, they must click the user agreement stipulated by Tencent to register their account. This user agreement is a service contract.In addition to service contracts, the relationship between users and Tencent is also governed by the Consumer Protection Law.The agreement is basically Tencent's exemption clause, while the law is mostly for the protection of user rights and regulations, effectiveness, the law is higher than the agreement. According to the provisions of Articles 8, 9, 16 and 20 of the Consumer Protection Law, users, as consumers, enjoy Tencent’s right to make inquiries, information, self-selection, and fair trade rights.On these issues, Tencent's problems are very big: Its reason for blocking users on the WeChat account, such as Alipay, Shrimp, and Netease Cloud Music, is security reasons, but the external statement also said that it is malicious marketing, Ali is not open to reciprocal, music software is pirated .These inconsistent claims violate consumer's right to know.The more critical issue is that they actually lack legitimacy. Tencent’s real purpose is to crack down on competitors and unreasonably refuse to provide original services to consumers, forcing consumers to use only Tencent’s services. This approach gives users It brought great inconvenience and allegedly infringed on WeChat users' right of self-selection and fair trade. According to publicly available data, the number of users of Alipay Wallet is nearly 200 million, that of shrimp nets and Netease cloud music clients are each tens of millions, while the number of WeChat users exceeds 500 million, according to my own conservative estimate, WeChat. Users should account for more than 70% of the above three applications, because Tencent's incompatible behavior, at least more than 100 million users can not use their own legitimate and legally available functions. Illegality 2: Unfair competition for blocked software. In order to fight against competitors, Tencent prohibits users from sharing competitors' services through WeChat, and is also suspected of violating various provisions of the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Internet Information Services Market Order of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Article 6 of the Measures: The Internet information service provider shall not have the following acts of unfair competition in its marketing activities: (2) Without proper reasons, it is incompatible with the legal products or services provided by other operators; due to non-human factors and If the existing legitimate products or services provided by other operators are incompatible, they do not provide objective prompts to the users, or deceive or induce users to make choices; (3) Interfering with legitimate products or services provided by other operators on the user terminals Operation, or modification of the contents of legitimate products or services provided by other operators, or interception of information of legitimate products or services provided by other operators; Two items from the posts, the second of which is Tencent is a recidivist, this is the Ministry of Industry for the year In the 3Q war, it was not tailor-made for 360 software, but this time it was allegedly violated.The third item is also violated from the point of view of the culture. The key point is that Tencent’s behavior is not justified. The reasons for it are far-fetched and inconsistent. Article 8 Internet information service providers shall abide by the relevant provisions of the "Telecommunication Services Specification" and shall not commit any of the following violations of the lawful rights and interests of users: (1) unilaterally rejecting, delaying or suspending the provision of services to users without proper reasons; ) restricting in any way the use of its designated business by users or restricting users' choice of products and services provided by other operators according to law; (c) using false information to deceive users to accept unfair terms of service provided by them or to select specific services provided by them; ( d) Other violations of the user’s right to know and choose. Personally think that all four provisions of Article 8 are subject to Tencent violations. Violation of Law III: Shielding competitors from allegedly monopolizing software and abusing market dominance. According to the provisions of the "Anti-Monopoly Law," an operator's market share in the relevant market can reach one-half, and it can be assumed that the operator has a dominant market position.Operators with market dominance must not have legitimate reasons to refuse to trade with counterparties; they must not tying goods without justified reasons, or attach other unreasonable trading conditions when trading. If Tencent was found to have a market share of more than 50% in the mobile social field, its screening was suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. The use of WeChat’s social software to shield competitors’ services was essentially to support WeChat payment, QQ music, etc. There is a product, which is a typical abuse of market dominance. However, how high the share of Tencent WeChat software in the social software market is a controversial issue. When our courts determine this issue, they often give a high threshold for the establishment of plaintiffs. The cases of abuse of market power that were accepted almost without exception were based on the lack of market share evidence to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.The NDRC is quite open when it determines the market dominance. Almost any large company can be deemed to have a market share of more than 50%. Therefore, if the case is settled by the lawsuit, it is technically difficult for Tencent to violate the Anti-Monopoly Law. However, if it is the Administration of Industry and Commerce that conducts an anti-monopoly investigation against Tencent and punishes it, the individual is estimated to determine that it has a dominant market position. Nailed on the board.Do you think this contradicts?Yes, it is indeed a contradiction. However, this is the current status of the legal application of China’s “anti-monopoly law”. For so many violations, what can WeChat users do? The WeChat screening incident is essentially a firestorm between giants. Tencent, Alibaba and Netease are all listed companies with huge volumes. For similar damages to consumers' rights and interests, many of them have disgraceful history, such as Alibaba.com has prohibited users of the shrimp client from sharing music on WeChat. It is still forbidden that Taobao users share Taobao’s links on WeChat. Netease rejects users’ videos on NetEase’s games on the video site and directly blocks users’ accounts.How giants compete for users can watch the game, but if the interests of their competing users are compromised, users should take legal weapons to protect their rights. Here are some ways to introduce them: 1. Under the Consumer Protection Law Rights protection. Article 39 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates: Consumers and business operators who have disputes over consumer rights can be resolved through the following channels: Negotiations with business operators, requesting consumer associations or other mediation organizations established in accordance with law to mediate , Complaints to relevant administrative departments.Therefore, WeChat users can complain to the Consumer Protection Committee about Tencent, and can also complain to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce or the Industry and Commerce Bureau of the local company of Tencent that Tencent has infringed on consumers’ right to information, independent choice, and fair trade rights. Second, the "Unfair Competition Law" under the right protection. The Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Internet Information Service Market Order stipulates that when a service dispute occurs between a user and an Internet information service provider, the user may file a complaint with the National Telecommunications User Appeal Reception Center and the telecommunications user complaint acceptance agency of the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government. The appellate acceptance agency shall handle it in accordance with the Interim Measures for the Handling of Complaints by Telecommunications Users. The Interim Measures for the Handling of Complaints by Telecommunications Users stipulates that users first complain to telecommunications service providers (that is, Tencent, which is a value-added telecommunications business operator), and telecommunication service providers should seriously accept complaints from users and receive users. Respond to the user within 15 working days from the date of the complaint.If the user is not satisfied with the results of the handling of the telecommunications business operators or if the telecommunications business operator fails to respond within 15 working days after receiving the complaint, he may file a complaint with the appeal acceptance agency.The claimant should submit a complaint to the complaint acceptance agency of the province, autonomous region, or municipality where the respondent is located.If the complainee's province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government does not have a complaint acceptance agency, the claimant may file a complaint with the national telecommunications user complaint acceptance center. Third, the "anti-monopoly law" under the right protection. Article 38 of the "Anti-Monopoly Law" stipulates: The anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall investigate the suspected monopolistic behavior according to law.For alleged monopolistic behavior, any unit or individual has the right to report to the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency.The anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall keep the informer confidential.Where the report is in writing and provides relevant facts and evidence, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall conduct the necessary investigation.The jurisdiction of the monopolistic conducts involved in this case shall be in the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Therefore, the user may also report to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce that Tencent has abused its market position to harm the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
Unless otherwise specified, all articles on this site are original Baiyuan's Blog, in order to respect the author’s Labor results, please indicate the source https://wangbaiyuan.cn/en/micro-envelope-alipay-red-envelope-with-netease-cloud-music-illegally-2.html