On August 13, the first finance and Economics Consulting China judicial documents website found that on August 7, Tianjin No.2 Intermediate People’s Court issued a case concerning commercial defamation dispute and commercial bribery unfair competition dispute between Shanghai lazas Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “hungry”) and Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sankuai Online Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “meituan”) A civil ruling of first instance was issued. According to the ruling, according to the above-mentioned laws and judicial interpretations, the place where the alleged infringement was committed and the place where the defendant’s residence was located are located in Haidian District, Beijing, so the case should be under the jurisdiction of the people’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing. According to the civil ruling, the case was filed on May 21, 2020. The claims filed by hungry Mo include: 1. To order the two defendants to stop unfair competition immediately, including but not limited to slandering the plaintiff’s goodwill and false publicity; 2. To order the two defendants to stop their unfair competition behaviors immediately, including but not limited to stopping all kinds of coercion against merchants to force them to use the defendant’s exclusive services; 3 The two defendants were ordered to make a statement on the front page of meituan app, the prominent position of meituan’s website (××) and influential newspapers in the country for three consecutive months to eliminate the influence, and to send general messages to meituan for three consecutive months to eliminate the influence; 4 The reasonable expenses for the competition behavior are RMB 1 million; 5. The two defendants are ordered to bear all the litigation costs of this case according to law. < p > < p > the facts and reasons given by meituan and famo mentioned that meituan and famo constituted a direct competitive relationship in the field of online catering services; meituan had unfair competition behaviors that infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of Nemo and destroyed the market competition order. According to the merchant’s reflection, the defendant is pushing the information of slandering the platform to the merchant through meituan platform, as well as threatening the merchant not to cooperate with Nemo, but to cooperate exclusively with meituan. Meituan’s unfair competition behavior has caused serious losses and destroyed the normal market competition order. In response to the lawsuit, Wang Beibei, a senior partner of Beijing Yingke Law Firm, told reporters of China first finance and economics that hungry man is not obliged to provide evidence for his claims, including the existence of unfair competition that is pushing the information denigrating the platform to the merchants through meituan platform, forcing the merchants not to cooperate with the company, and forcing the merchants to cooperate exclusively with meituan For the fact. In addition, you also need to prove the actual loss caused by the behavior of the two defendants. According to Wang Beibei, such commercial infringement cases are usually closed within six months. At the same time, commercial defamation and other unfair competition disputes are civil cases, which do not involve administrative punishment or criminal liability. < / P > < p > during the epidemic period, some merchants also reported that meituan had unfair competition. On February 21, Sichuan Nanchong hot pot Association reported to Nanchong municipal government that meituan was involved in monopoly operation. The content of the report included that meituan required merchants to cooperate exclusively with meituan. On April 10, Guangdong food and Beverage Association issued a joint negotiation letter to meituan, asking for the cancellation of monopoly clauses such as “exclusive cooperation restriction” and reducing the Commission for takeout services. Subsequently, Guangdong Food Association and meituan conducted face-to-face communication on issues related to Guangdong catering takeout, and both sides reached an agreement. < / P > < p > and the same problem may occur in the hungry platform. On July 7, 20 catering merchants in Cangnan County, Wenzhou City, jointly reported their hunger to Wenzhou market supervision and Administration Bureau, forcing them to sign exclusive agreements and not allowing merchants to go online on other takeout platforms.