There is a dispute between meituan and meituan about “choosing one from two” again. China judicial document website recently disclosed the first instance civil ruling of meituan’s taking out commercial bribery and unfair competition dispute, demanding that meituan immediately stop infringement and compensate 1 million yuan. According to the ruling, Tianjin No.2 Intermediate People’s court held that both 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. The ruling result is: the case was transferred to the people’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing. < / P > < p > since the establishment of the two platforms, there has been continuous commercial competition. Affected by the epidemic situation, the competition among takeout platforms has intensified. According to the Research Report of some securities companies, the market share of meituan takeout has reached 67.3% in the first quarter of 2020. < / P > < p > behind the competition, there are frequent legal disputes over unfair competition between meituan and meituan. Due to unfair competition, the two platforms have been punished by the market regulatory authorities for many times. Recently, China judicial document website released the first instance civil ruling on commercial defamation dispute and commercial bribery unfair competition dispute between Shanghai lazas Information Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd., and Beijing Sankuai Online Technology Co., Ltd. < p > < p > according to the ruling, hungry Mo said that meituan’s takeout had the behavior of pushing and slandering the information of the platform to the merchants and forcing the merchants not to cooperate with the company, but only with the exclusive information of meituan. Meituan’s takeout has damaged the legitimate competitive interests and the legitimate rights and interests of users, destroyed the market competition order of voluntariness, fairness and integrity, and constituted an unfair competition behavior against Nemo. < p > < p > as a result, hungry Mo asked the court to order meituan to immediately stop its unfair competition and compensate meituan with 1 million yuan. On July 24, the second intermediate people’s Court of Tianjin ruled to transfer the case to the people’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing. < / P > < p > during this year’s new epidemic, despite the decline in restaurant turnover, various restaurants began to invest in takeout business, and more people began to use takeaway app to order meals. < p > < p > this has a profound impact on the business service form and consumer habits. According to the research report released by Founder Securities in July, the proportion of takeout income of some businesses during the epidemic period increased from 10% to 20% to more than 60%. In 2019, the scale of China’s catering market has exceeded 4 trillion, with small and medium-sized enterprises contributing nearly 80% of catering income, and 420 million people bringing in nearly 300 billion takeout income. < p > < p > in 2008, meituan takeout and Baidu takeout were launched respectively in 2013 and 2014. After one year, giant capital entered the market, Tencent invested in meituan, and hungry Mo was incorporated into Alibaba. In 2017, hungry Mo acquired Baidu takeaway, meituan and hungry Mo almost took over the takeout market, and the tail enterprises gradually cleared up. < p > < p > after meituan’s takeout was launched in 2013, its goal is to sink the market. Under the pressure of competition, the company expanded to 62 cities and 200 sites in the first half of 2014. During the same period, baidu takeout followed up, and a tripartite pattern of takeout market was formed. < / P > < p > from 2015 to 2017, it became a subsidy burning battle of takeout platforms. Through intensive recruitment of local promotion personnel, the three platforms competed for the takeout market. < / P > < p > around the Spring Festival in 2016, meituan takeout launched the “Spring Bud Plan”. By increasing subsidies, meituan hopes to retain rider resources for distribution during the Spring Festival, and recruit a large number of riders after the Spring Festival, while Baidu takeout chose to spend money to send the riders home for the new year. After the “Spring Bud Plan”, meituan took away a lot of market share of Baidu takeaway in a few months. According to Founder Securities data, by the first half of 2017, the market shares of hungry Mo and meituan were 41.7% and 41% respectively. < / P > < p > in 2017, the Spring Festival takeout market set off a “winter campaign”, and the two fought head-on again. Before the Spring Festival, meituan launched the “Spring Festival does not close” plan, the market share of both sides returned to the origin. < p > < p > in August 2017, the company acquired Baidu takeaway and renamed it “hungry star selection”. Subsequently, it was wholly owned by Alibaba. According to the data of AI media consulting, the market share of the first and second tier cities in 2018 has rapidly increased to 47.4%. According to the research report released by Guoxin Securities in December 2019, in the third quarter of 2019, the net increase of meituan merchants was 300000, which was about twice the amount of hungry merchants. This is related to the initial strategy choice of the two platforms. In the first half of 2014, meituan laid down the market and had obvious first mover advantages; meituan started from colleges and universities and began to focus on the first and second tier cities, and then began to expand to second and third tier cities in the second half of 2014. The market share of the two companies has also changed this year. According to Founder Securities Research Report, the market share of meituan takeout in the first quarter of the third tier year in 2019 has reached 67.3%. Over the same period of time, the share of hungry market (including hungry and hungry star) dropped to 30.9%, but the income increased steadily. < p > < p > 21st century economic report found that there were at least five legal disputes about unfair competition and commercial bribery between the companies of the two platforms since 2018. < / P > < p > in June 2017, meituan forced local businesses to sign a “letter of commitment” to sign an exclusive agreement. Otherwise, it would raise the rates and even close stores. Jinhua Market Supervision Bureau punished meituan for restricting competition and other illegal acts, with a total fine of 526000 yuan. In the same year, the case was listed as one of the top ten typical cases of the “red shield cyber sword” special law enforcement action in Zhejiang Province in 2017. < / P > < p > in April 2018, Wuxi Industrial and commercial bureau interviewed Didi, meituan and famo, and ordered the takeout platform to stop the unfair competition and monopoly behavior of merchants such as “choose one from two”. In May 2018, the market supervision bureau of qingjiangpu District, Huai’an City, Jiangsu Province, aimed at the existence of meituan takeout. For some businesses operating on meituan and Nemo takeout platforms at the same time, they forced the merchants to take off the shelves of meituan takeout platform by means of increasing the rates, setting up breaks and setting unreasonable conditions, which determined that it constituted unfair competition and fined meituan 70000 yuan according to law. In March of the same year, the market supervision and Administration Bureau of Tongjiang County, Bazhong City, Sichuan Province, imposed a fine of 250000 yuan on meituan’s forced sellers to “choose one from two” for being suspected of misleading and cheating and forcing users to modify, close and unload network products or services legally provided by other operators. < p > < p > in May 2019, the case released by Anhui provincial market supervision and Administration Bureau showed that Tianchang City’s takeaway service station used technology and other means to restrict trading unfair competition, which violated the relevant provisions of the anti unfair competition law. On September 10, 2019, the market supervision bureau of Tianchang City ordered him to stop his illegal activities and fined him 100000 yuan. In the same month, you hungry apologized to meituan for unfair competition on the official website. The dispute began in 2016, when some businesses on the market appeared coupons with obvious behavior orientation, and meituan sued famo and its four stores for commercial bribery and unfair competition. < / P > < p > take “Bayu Shijia restaurant” as an example. The store has two platforms: meituan and qianlemao. Under the condition that the types of dishes are basically the same and the selling prices of the same dishes are the same, the “hungry Moli pressure meituan 5 yuan” coupon is launched by hungry Mo, which has obvious guiding behavior. The court finally ruled that hungry Mo and the restaurant stopped the coupon promotion and compensated meituan with 50000 yuan. < p > < p > in July this year, according to local media reports in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, a hungry merchant reported that because it refused to sign a strategic exclusive cooperation agreement with the hungry platform, it was required that it could not enter other takeout platforms, and that the merchant’s shop was offline on the hungry platform that day.