2, after the US delegation banned Alipay, they sent the US group to court. It was said that the US delegation forced the merchants to “choose two”. This is the routine operation in the shopping mall, but there has been no clear precedent before, and the case is heading for the most important. Before that, the second intermediate people’s Court of Tianjin held a case of commercial defamation dispute and commercial bribery unfair competition dispute. The plaintiff is Shanghai lazars Information Technology Co., Ltd., and the defendant is Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sankuai Online Technology Co., Ltd. < / P > < p > to put it bluntly, meituan sued meituan in court, and meituan claimed that meituan pushed the information that slandered famo platform to the merchants, and forced the merchants not to cooperate with Nemo, but to cooperate exclusively with meituan.
and before the lawsuit, the US group banned Alipay, which was regarded as a re escalation of PK between the US group and the Ali group. This is not the first time meituan and hungry have met in court, but their positions have changed. At that time, hungry moo got into the dock with a coupon.
wants users to choose “two choices” among WeChat and Alipay. It is necessary for merchants to “choose two” in the hungry and the US group, and the game of “two pick one” has started. In fact, in 2019, meituan was fined 250000 yuan by the industrial and commercial departments for the “one out of two” problem. < / P > < p > “I don’t pay much attention to the prosecution, but meituan’s mandatory choice does exist.” As the owner of a restaurant chain store in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei, Liu Feng (pseudonym) is very concerned about the takeout market. Several of his chain stores in different regions have encountered the situation of “one of two choices”. < p > < p > Liu Feng revealed that there are generally two situations: one is that the meituan sets up a strategic cooperation mode, and the points and subsidies enjoyed by exclusive and non exclusive groups are not the same. “Take the sampling point for example, if the exclusive listing of meituan is on the shelves, the sampling point is 18%; if it is non exclusive, the sampling point will rise to 25%; in addition, the distribution scope and activity subsidy will also be reduced.” Liu Feng said that the first situation is relatively common, and the second situation is the compulsory choice of one, mainly in the areas where meituan has a high market share. As long as the merchants in these areas get on the platform, they will be taken off the shelves by meituan platform. < p > < p > in both cases, Liu Feng has encountered them, and his choice is “compromise”. “If you don’t go to meituan, it will affect 70% – 80% of the takeaway sales, and most businesses still care about this part of the income.” What makes Liu Feng helpless is that in order to reduce the impact on sales, he can only accept meituan’s conditions. “Some of his peers’ revolt ‘and are demoted. In order to survive, they can only accept the fact.” < / P > < p > undeniably, no matter what form of “choose one from two”, it will bring harm to businesses. “If a merchant is on two platforms at the same time, the single volume of meituan will account for 60%, and the hungry one will account for about 40%. Only in this way can they make profits. However, if we can only sign meituan, we will lose nearly half of the amount per month. With fixed labor and rent costs, a large number of businesses, especially small businesses, can’t afford it. ” Liu Feng said. < / P > < p > when two kings fight each other, it is often the common people who are injured, and “choose one from two” is also a long-standing problem in the takeout market. According to the report on China’s online takeout market data in 2019 released by the e-commerce research center of e-commerce, it is said that forcing businesses to “choose one from two” is one of the hot spots in complaints against business rights protection. Cao Lei, director of the e-commerce research center of ecommerce.com, once said that fighting openly and secretly is common in the e-commerce industry, but there has been no clear case of administrative punishment or judicial judgment. The core difficulty is that it is relatively difficult to obtain evidence for technical violence. Compared with the platform, the business is in a weak position, the channel is limited, the business interests are damaged, and they dare not offend any strong platform, let alone sue the platform. After the restriction of free competition, consumers will eventually have to pay for the platform monopoly. < / P > < p > on August 31, 2018, the newly issued “e-commerce law” clearly stipulates that “operators of e-commerce platforms shall not impose unreasonable restrictions or impose unreasonable conditions on the transactions, transaction prices and transactions with other operators by means of service agreements, trading rules and technologies. < / P > < p > “if you are hungry, the evidence of this lawsuit is sufficient, then the probability of meituan losing the lawsuit, making compensation and apologizing is very high.” Fang Chaoqiang, a special researcher of the e-commerce research center of e-commerce and a lawyer of Beijing Yingke (Hangzhou) law firm, said that it is clear that no matter in the way of coercion or inducement, as long as the merchants in the platform are improperly restricted to cooperate with the third-party platform, it can be determined that it is unfair competition in nature. In the process of promoting merchants to “choose one from two”, if the platform uses improper or false information to slander the third-party platform, this behavior and process is also suspected of unfair competition. The anti unfair competition law has clearly prohibited provisions on this. < / P > < p > < p > “choose one from two” is not a way to “bind” users and businesses. It is not important who will sue each other and how the result will be. What is important is what changes will happen to the market.