What happened when the US Mission was exposed to the "monopoly overlord clause"?

Recently, the media of many business leaders in Huai 'an, Jiangsu Province reported that the Meituan takeaway platform in this area was suspected of setting monopoly contract terms. "The salesman threatened us not to enter other take-out platforms while signing the contract with the US Mission, otherwise we would go offline."

Some merchants have reported that their stores have been "closed" because they signed contracts with other take-away platforms.

In response to the above incidents, Meituan Takeaway said that the company did not set performance appraisal indicators for merchants to sign "exclusive" agreements. At present, the Huai 'an market is being checked and actively communicated with the businesses involved.

Some people in the legal profession said that the take-out behavior of the US group reflected by the above-mentioned merchants may be suspected of violating the fourth provision of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law: an operator with a dominant market position may not restrict the counterparty from trading only with it or only with its designated operators without justifiable reasons.

Liang Zhou, a lawyer of Jiangsu Yicheng Law Firm, said that because the relationship between the take-away platform and the settled merchants is not "the relationship between operators and consumers" but "the relationship between operators and operators", the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable.

Article 2 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests shows that consumers' rights and interests are protected by this law when they buy or use commodities or receive services for their daily consumption. Matters not specified in this Law shall be protected by other relevant laws and regulations.

Liang Zhou said that, therefore, it is difficult to define whether the "exclusivity" agreement appealed by merchants belongs to the "overlord clause". "The overlord clause generally refers to the field of consumer rights protection."

"But it may involve anti-monopoly law." Liang Zhou said that there are many kinds of monopolies, and it is a form of monopoly to restrict or exclude competition by taking advantage of market dominance.

According to Item 4 of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, an operator with a dominant market position shall not restrict the counterparty from trading only with it or only with its designated operators without justifiable reasons.

"But whether it has a dominant market position should be determined by the relevant state departments." Liang Zhou believes that the take-away behavior of the US delegation may be suspected of excluding or restricting the "monopoly" of competition, but this needs further observation.

Liang Zhou added that, generally speaking, the take-away platform is undoubtedly in a strong position compared with the settled merchants, and the merchants should carefully consider it before signing a contract with them.