Abuse of Dominance in China – The First Cases (in Chinese)
in Capacity Building for the Enforcement of Competition Law (Wang Xiaoye Ed.) (2012), pp. 153-173.
11 Pages Posted: 9 Jul 2012 Last revised: 11 Jul 2012
Date Written: July 8, 2012
The Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) marks a milestone in China’s antitrust history. An important change brought about by the AML is the treatment of single-firm conduct under Chinese antitrust rules.
The AML contains a general prohibition of abuse of a dominant market position, and lists a few specific types of conduct that are deemed abusive, unless justified by valid reasons. This article examines four elements needed to prove the existence of a violation of the AML's abuse of dominance prohibition: (1) definition of the relevant market; (2) dominance in that market; (3) abusive conduct; and (4) absence of valid reasons justifying that conduct.
Since the AML’s entry into force over three years ago, there have been relatively few government investigations and court cases under that law. However, many of the court cases where a final decision was released (fully or in part) concerned abuse of dominance. This article discusses three of these court cases — i.e., the Baidu, Shanda and China Netcom cases — and a matter investigated by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and its local counterpart.
Note: Downloadable document is in Chinese.
Keywords: Antitrust, competition law, abuse of dominance, dominant market position, single-firm conduct, monopolization, China, NDRC, Supreme People's Court
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation