#文章首发挑战赛#
In a major legal ruling in China's e-commerce space, JD.com (JD.com) won its case against Alibaba for its either-or-the-none policy. The Beijing High People's Court found Alibaba abusing its dominant market position and committing monopolistic acts, and ordered it to pay JD.com RMB 1 billion in compensation. This judgment marks an important moment in the process of China's anti-monopoly rule of law and emphasizes the importance of fair competition in the market.
According to reports, JD.com filed a lawsuit alleging that since 2013, Alibaba has been requiring multiple brand merchants such as clothing and home furnishings to sign exclusive cooperation agreements to open stores only on Tmall Mall, and not to participate in promotional activities or open stores in JD.com. JD.com believes that this policy restricts market competition, harms the legitimate rights and interests of brands, merchants and consumers, and weakens the innovation and vitality of the market.
Alibaba respects the ruling, which is another legal challenge it faces after it was fined 18.228 billion yuan by the State Administration for Market Regulation in 2021 for similar monopolistic practices. The ruling is expected to have a profound impact on China's e-commerce industry, signaling a stricter stance on monopolistic practices and advocating a level playing field for the market.
The judgment in this case is not only a victory for JD.com in opposing the "either-or" monopolistic behavior, but also an important moment for the market rule of law to maintain the order of fair competition in the market, which means that China's anti-monopoly rule of law is moving towards a new milestone.
As soon as the news was posted on the Internet, the comment area instantly exploded! Tens of thousands of comments poured in
Some of these netizens' comments are even more interesting and interesting, let's take a look
Netizen: Douyin has been brushed too much, 1 billion sounds like 100 yuan [crying silently]
Netizen: Is it bad to have full and free competition? Do you still want to engage in monopoly?
Netizen: He's not interested in money, so he'll cash out more than 100 billion [Look]
Netizens asked: Does Alibaba have no money to hire legal counsel?
Netizen: Alibaba is unreasonable, so it will lose, and it has nothing to do with lawyers
Netizen: Choose one of the two, and in the end everyone chose Pinduoduo.
Netizen: Ali really dared to do anything before, but now he is beaten by Duoduo Douyin, wow wow [covering his face]
Netizen: 10 billion, 10 billion, 10 billion, 10 billion, I can't spend it for a lifetime [sneering laugh].
Netizen: I feel that Liu Qiangdong has regained his strength, and it was a bad comment some time ago
Netizen: Leave a line in everything, and see each other in the future, have you forgotten the old horse?
Editor:
As a blogger of Toutiao, I am particularly interested in the outcome of the "either-or" lawsuit between JD.com and Alibaba. When we usually shop online, we may not pay much attention to the disputes between these large companies, but this ruling is actually quite relevant to each of us.
First of all, this case teaches us a lesson about how important fair play is. For example, in the supermarket in our community, if there is only one brand of drink to sell, then consumers will have fewer choices, and they may have to endure high-priced or unpalatable drinks. This time, the court made Alibaba lose money because it had previously restricted merchants from selling on Tmall and not JD.com. In this way, the merchants and those of us who buy things have fewer choices, which is not fair.
In addition, this judgment also shows us that the state is getting stronger and stronger in regulating the market. The law is not just words, it really works. This is good news for us consumers, which means that online shopping will be fairer in the future and will not be controlled by a large company.
This incident is also a reminder to other e-commerce companies and merchants that they can't bully others just because they are strong. No matter how big the company is, it has to play by the rules and compete fairly. In this way, the market can develop better, and we consumers can also benefit from it and buy more good goods.
Finally, we, as consumers, also have to have our own judgment. Support those stores that do things fairly and have good quality products, so that our market can become healthier and healthier.
Overall, this lawsuit is not only about JD.com winning against Alibaba, but more importantly, it gives us a level playing field. Such a market can allow us to buy high-quality and inexpensive things, and can also prompt more companies to strive to improve themselves and bring us a better shopping experience.
Headline friends, this is my sharing today, welcome to leave a message to discuss, thank you again for your support and love!
Recommended in the past
I can't laugh anymore, the winter fishing fish in Chagan Lake was auctioned for nearly 1.4 million yuan, but I died laughing in the comment area of netizens
I can't laugh anymore, Lei Jun posted a picture of the Xiaomi car shed, but I died laughing in the comment area of netizens
#Ali was sentenced to compensate JD.com 1 billion##Seeing all kinds of things in the world##Universal life guide##评论区#
#网友#