How much was the US Mission awarded for losing the case due to unfair competition?

Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Huai 'an City, Jiangsu Province made a judgment on the unfair competition of Meituan, and Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. (Meituan) will compensate Shanghai Hailasas Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hungry) for 352,000 yuan.

It is understood that the case was filed on June 20 19, with the case number of (20 19) Su 08 Minchu No.309. This case is an infringement case of unfair competition in the field of take-away food, which is Article 12 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which came into effect on June 0, 20 18+65438.

As an Internet takeaway giant, the dispute between Meituan and Hungry has a long history, and this is not the first time that Meituan has suffered property losses due to unfair competition.

As early as 2065438+June 2007, Jinhua Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province imposed penalties on Meituan for restricting competition and other illegal acts, with a total fine of 526,000 yuan. Because Meituan takes advantage of its dominant position in the local area, it forces merchants to sign a "cooperation commitment letter" and demands to sign an exclusive agreement, otherwise it will raise the rate or even close the store.

Extended data:

With the intensification of unfair competition such as "two-in-one", the supervision of relevant state departments has gradually tightened and improved.

On June 5438+065438+1October 10 in 2020, on the eve of the "Double Eleven" promotion of e-commerce, the State Administration of Market Supervision issued the "Anti-monopoly Guide for Platform Economy (Draft for Comment)" for the first time, clearly defining "one of the two choices" as abusing the dominant market position and constituting a restricted transaction.

On February 7th this year, the Anti-monopoly Committee of the State Council officially issued and implemented the Anti-monopoly Guide in the Field of Platform Economy, in order to prevent and stop the monopolistic behavior in the field of platform economy, and make it clear that "one of two choices" may constitute abuse of market dominance to restrict transactions.

Not long ago, the General Administration of Market Supervision decided to impose administrative penalties on Alibaba's "two-in-one" monopolistic behavior, ordered Alibaba Group to stop its illegal behavior, and imposed a fine of 4% on its sales in China in 20 19, amounting to182.28 million yuan.