Experts Say Taobao Mall Violates The Anti-Monopoly Law; Improper Way Of Seller'S Rights Protection

"Taobao Shopping Mall Suspected of abusing market dominance and violating anti MONOPOLY The rules need to be adjusted. " For Taobao recently Shopping Mall The big seller was "besieged" by the network, many experts said so.

The new rules are not equal in advance consult

Recently, Taobao Mall issued the announcement of 2012 new investment promotion methods and rules adjustment, which was resisted by small and medium-sized sellers, and organized an online siege on big sellers.

At present, Taobao Mall charges sellers three parts: technical service fee, annual technical service fee and deposit. The announcement significantly increased the annual fee and deposit of technical service fees. Previously, the minimum annual technical service fee of 6000 yuan was raised to 30000 yuan and 60000 yuan, while the deposit was raised from 10000 yuan to 50000 yuan, 100000 yuan and 150000 yuan. In addition, the technical service rate of some goods was also increased from 2% to 3%.

As soon as the news came out, many small sellers protested. On the evening of November 11, as many as 7000 small and medium-sized sellers launched malicious attacks on the big sellers of Taobao Mall through YY voice and other organizational methods, aiming to force Taobao Mall to modify its rules.

At present, both sides have a strong attitude. Taobao Mall said it had reported the malicious attack to the police and would not compromise. The small and medium-sized sellers' rights protection organization "China Internet Merchants Rights Protection Association" did not show weakness. Today they put forward, "We hope Taobao will communicate with all small and medium-sized Taobao enterprises in the hall of YY34158 before 24:00 on October 15, 2011. After the deadline, we will launch a larger group purchase!"

This means that if Taobao Mall does not have equal dialogue, it may encounter a larger network attack.

The reporter called Taobao Mall customer service today, and the other party said that the fee would not be adjusted.

It is reported that most sellers were unaware of the rules adjustment of Taobao Mall in advance. Zhang Yong, president of Taobao Mall, said to the media, "The upgrade of the whole rule was discussed when Taobao was dismantled in June. During this period, he communicated with some sellers about the whole scheme." He did not specifically disclose which sellers.

Liu Deliang, a professor at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, said, "The relationship between Taobao Mall and the seller is a leasing relationship. According to the contract law, the parties can change the contract by consensus. Although Taobao Mall cannot negotiate with the seller one by one, it cannot exclude the other party's rights when modifying the rules. Moreover, Taobao Mall formulates a standard contract, and the special long-term contractual relationship with Taobao sellers should be in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Law, instead of increasing the liability of the other party. "

Suspected of abusing market dominance

Why should Taobao Mall adjust the rules? Taobao Mall announced that in order to create quality. Taobao Mall encourages businesses to provide consumers with high-quality goods and services, and at the same time, it clearly opposes fake goods, smuggled goods, low-quality goods, and all acts of vicious competition at low prices.

The announcement also said, "Any policy adjustment made by Taobao Mall is intended to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of businesses and consumers."

The reporter found that at present, there are roughly two views on the new Taobao rules: one is that Taobao Mall is its operational autonomy in pricing its service content, and the price enterprises of general goods or services have the right to determine according to the market and consumption conditions. Another view is that the new rule is just an invitation to offer in the contract law, which is legal. If the seller does not accept the rule, it can choose to terminate the contract. However, for sellers who signed a contract with the mall shortly before the release of the new rules, if the mall did not inform them that it would adopt the new rules when signing the contract, the mall's behavior would be a breach of contract.

Professor Wang Chunhui, a famous legal and commercial expert, believes that this "Taobao Incident" should not only focus on the legal nature of the new rules, but also on the oligopoly and abuse of dominance of China's Internet industry in some relevant markets caused by the new rules.

According to the provisions of the Anti monopoly Law, market dominance refers to the market position of operators in the relevant market that can control the price, quantity or other trading conditions of commodities, or can hinder or affect the ability of other operators to enter the relevant market.

At present, antitrust laws of various countries strictly prohibit operators from abusing their dominant market position. China's anti-monopoly law also stipulates that operators with a dominant market position are prohibited from selling goods at an unfair high price or buying goods at an unfair low price.

According to research data from well-known domestic consulting firm iResearch, in the second quarter of 2011, Taobao Mall accounted for 48.5% of the domestic B2C market share, nearly twice the sum of the second to tenth places. At present, more than 70000 brands and 50000 merchants have settled in Taobao Mall.

Wang Chunhui believes that it is obvious that Taobao Mall occupies an absolute dominant position in the market related to B2C online shopping. In this regard, small and medium-sized sellers of Taobao rely heavily on Taobao Mall, which has no game and negotiation ability for the price adjustment of the new rules, which is the main reason for the Taobao incident. Taobao Mall has used its dominant position in B2C online shopping related markets to significantly increase service related prices, which is five times more than that of last year. It has been suspected of violating the prohibition of abuse of market dominance under the anti-monopoly law.

Liu Deliang told the reporter that Taobao Mall has the power of management, and the idea of building a better brand in the industry is understandable, but the unreasonable adjustment of the contract content "one size fits all" has an impact on sellers, and Taobao Mall is also suspected of abusing its dominant position in the market and violating the provisions of the anti-monopoly law. Taobao Mall should treat sellers differently according to their integrity and business scale.

Professor Sheng Jiemin, an expert in anti-monopoly law at Peking University, had the first reaction when he heard the news: "The cost must eventually be passed on to consumers."

Sheng Jiemin said that it is very complicated to determine whether an enterprise has a dominant market position. First, we need to define the "relevant market". Second, we need professional data and analysis to estimate and determine the dominant market position.

The rules should be approved by the government department

During the interview, experts all said that government departments should actively participate. Wang Chunhui told reporters that the market dominance of Taobao Mall is a special form of e-commerce market dominance. Its advantage is an advantage in online transactions. Taobao Mall not only has the ability to determine its service content, but also can propose unreasonable service conditions. The absolute advantage will inevitably lead to abuse. Taobao has such a huge consumer group and merchants, and the formulation of its trading rules must not be decided by Taobao alone, but must take into account social, technological, market, policy, law and other factors. To say the least, Taobao's adjustment of entry rules does not conform to the current policy direction of the State Council to promote the development of small and micro enterprises. Therefore, the government must actively regulate the e-commerce transaction rules of enterprises with dominant market position, and regulate and supervise them through legislation.

In addition, it is the responsibility of government authorities at all levels to strengthen the supervision of third-party electronic trading platforms. In April 2011, the Ministry of Commerce issued the Third Party E-commerce Trading Platform Service Specification, which clearly stipulates that competent commercial authorities at all levels should establish a regulatory responsibility system and accountability system for online trading service specifications, and supervise the trading behavior of platform operators and station operators according to law.

Wang Chunhui also suggested that the deposit should be strictly supervised, requiring Taobao Mall to keep a certain amount or transaction proportion of deposit in its bank of deposit. Once problems occur, the bank can immediately freeze this part of funds to resist risks.

The "China Association for the Protection of Online Businessmen's Rights" also called on the government to regulate the e-commerce market tonight. They said: "Our goal of safeguarding rights is not only to restore Taobao's original online platform system, but also to let the government participate in online shopping platforms, formulate e-commerce laws, establish online merchants supervision associations, and establish third-party supervision platforms“

The way of seller's rights protection is not desirable

Although the new rules of Taobao Mall set the annual fee refund standard, Taobao Mall said that as long as the dynamic service score of merchants reached 4.6 points and the transaction scale reached a certain level, part and full of the annual fee will be returned. At present, most merchants meet the annual fee refund standard.

The seller has doubts about the deposit. Taobao Mall also said that the deposit is frozen in the seller's Alipay account, and Taobao Mall has no right and never thought of misappropriating funds. However, small and medium-sized sellers are still dissatisfied with Taobao's holding of funds, and some sellers even claim that it is illegal fund-raising.

Liu Deliang said that the cyber attacks of small and medium-sized sellers are illegal and undesirable. Civil cases involve non performance of contracts and infringement of the right of goodwill. Criminal cases may involve contract fraud and defamation of goodwill. In addition, serious cyber attacks may also lead to criminal liability.

Wang Chunhui believes that, according to the provisions of the Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, the seller's behavior is not enough to disrupt public order.

Sheng Jiemin suggested that small and medium-sized sellers should change their current way of safeguarding their rights and report to the antitrust authorities.
?