after being questioned “big data kill”, the United States again because of the abolition of Alipay channel accused of the court. In December 29th, according to the China Economic Weekly, the Beijing intellectual property court has filed a case against the United States because of the cancellation of the Alipay channel. According to the civil case acceptance notice (2020) No.888 of Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Wang sued the defendants Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sankuai Information Technology Co., Ltd. (meituan operator, hereinafter referred to as “meituan”) for abusing their dominant market position. After examination, they met the acceptance conditions stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, Beijing Intellectual Property Court decided to file a case for trial.

in December 28th, Chen Pengfei, a lawyer of Beijing real estate law firm, said that the US group APP, the US group comment APP and so on, taking advantage of its dominant market position, abolished the Alipay channel, making it impossible for consumers to pay through Alipay in the above APP. < / P > < p > things can be traced back to the end of July this year. At that time, some media reported that some users in the use of the US group payment found that the monthly payment and bank card payment of the US group took priority. WeChat payment and ApplePay were also paying the choice list, but no longer showed Alipay payment. This is not the first cancellation of the Alipay channel. According to statistics, since 2016, the US mission has been called back to Alipay for three times by some users.

until the end of July this year, some netizens found that there was no Alipay option on the page when the US group took away the meal. Previously, the US group had been folding Alipay.

July 29th, the US group paid monthly administrative micro blog voice, “in fact, the main body of this article is changed to hungry? App and WeChat pay the same way”, and with the hungry can only use flower and Alipay payment screenshots. < / P > < p > for this, use “exclude me?” when you are hungry In response, and drying out hungry, not only support Alipay and Hua Bai, but also support the WeChat payment screenshots.

on the night of the news ferment, the US delegation CEO Wang Xing responded to the matter by saying, “WeChat has more active users than Alipay and lower service charges”. At the same time, what is the reason why Taobao doesn’t support WeChat payment yet? < / P > < p > in the category of “online service platform” involved in meituan business (group purchase service platform, comprehensive life service platform, tourism service platform and ordering service platform), wechat payment rate is 0.60%, and the settlement cycle is t + 1.

and in Alipay’s rate presentation, apart from the game related “special industries”, the rate of APP payment is also 0.60%. At the same time, the newly signed products will be settled on the next day when the product is collected within 90 days or under 30 consecutive transactions.

however, when such a large platform such as the US group is working with WeChat payment and Alipay, the rate can be further reduced. The specific rate is determined by the cooperation between the two sides. Similar to the US mission,

shopping mall also issued a notice in 2011 that it will stop working with Alipay when it expires with Alipay. Liu Qiangdong used the same reason as “Alipay’s rate is too high”. He said: “the annual use of Alipay is more than 5 million -600 million more than other payment parties.” In addition to the strategic factors, there are rumors that Jingdong wanted to reduce the rate from 0.40% to 0.30% of the electricity supplier at that time, but was rejected by Alipay. < / P > < p > according to the data of trustdata, a third-party big data research institution, meituan’s market share in China’s takeout industry has increased from 63.4% in the first quarter of 2019 to 68.2% in the second quarter of 2020. The market share of hungry, hungry star selection and other platforms totaled 31.8%. The US delegation has occupied relative advantage. This is also why the US delegation cancelled Alipay. < / P > < p > in August this year, according to the news from China judicial document network, the second intermediate people’s Court of Tianjin city has found that Shanghai lazas Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “hungry” for short) and Beijing Sankuai Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sankuai online technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “meituan”) which are the main operators of hungry, have improper commercial defamation disputes and commercial bribery When the competition dispute case issued a civil ruling of first instance. < / P > < p > according to the civil ruling, the case was filed on May 21, 2020. The claims filed by hungry Mo include: 1. Order the two defendants to immediately stop unfair competition, including but not limited to immediately stop defaming the plaintiff’s goodwill, false publicity, etc.; 2. Order the two defendants to immediately stop unfair competition, including but not limited to stopping all kinds of coercion measures taken against merchants to force them to use the defendant’s exclusive service; 3 In accordance with the law, the two defendants were ordered to make statements on their unfair competition behaviors in the prominent position of meituan’s app home page, meituan’s website home page and influential national newspapers for three consecutive months to eliminate the influence, and to send general news on meituan’s takeaway business page for three consecutive months to eliminate the influence; 4. The two defendants were ordered to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and to stop the defendant’s unfair competition The reasonable expenses incurred by the two defendants in the dispute amount to 1 million yuan; 5. At present, the case is still under trial. < / P > < p > as of the time of publication, Sohu technology has again tested the payment methods adopted by meituan and enlemo. Among them, in some of the models, the US group has no Alipay option, and the WeChat payment in the hungry is still available, but it is folded and displayed like Hua Bi.

has consulted the relevant legal persons for the cancellation of Alipay channel by the US group. The Sohu has consulted the relevant legal persons. There are two views: one is that meituan should not be punished because it is a normal business behavior; the other is that meituan is suspected of infringing consumers’ right of choice and restricting competition. < p > < p > Song Jia, executive director of Beijing Huajia law firm, told Sohu Technology: “meituan is a normal business behavior. It does not violate the law, and of course it should not be punished.” < / P > < p > she further explained that although the anti unfair competition law forbids “malicious incompatibility with the network products or services legally provided by other operators”, it is not forced compatibility. Operators still have the right to choose. Forced compatibility has nothing to do with the legislative purpose and legal value of the anti unfair competition law. In addition, according to the antimonopoly law, meituan’s choice of payment method does not belong to the behavior of abusing market dominant position, nor does it have the effect of excluding and restricting competition. < / P > < p > Qiu Baochang, a lawyer of Beijing Huijia law firm, once said in an interview that the more payment methods provided by the platform, the more they can meet the payment habits of more consumers and improve the consumption experience. As for old users, they can take multiple payment methods on a certain platform, but now they can only choose one, which is suspected of infringing consumers’ right of choice. If this platform has a dominant position in the market, it is suspected of restricting competition. < / P > < p > among them, the specific laws involved include: Article 22 of the e-commerce law stipulates that if an e-commerce operator has a dominant position in the market due to its technical advantages, the number of users, the ability to control relevant industries, and the degree of dependence of other operators on the E-commerce operator in transactions, it shall not abuse the dominant position in the market, exclude or restrict it Competition. Article 17 of the anti monopoly law specifies the prohibition of abusing the dominant market position, and the relevant provisions include the second paragraph, which refuses to trade with the opposite party without proper reasons; In the fourth paragraph, without justifiable reasons, the trading counterpart can only trade with or with the designated operator; and in the sixth paragraph, without justifiable reasons, the trading counterpart with the same conditions will be treated differently in terms of trading price and other trading conditions; < p > < p > but in practice, the application threshold of anti-monopoly law is higher and more difficult. First, we need to define the “relevant market”. At the same time, the enterprise involved needs to have a dominant position in the market. The definition of dominant position means that the operator has a market position in the relevant market that can control the price, quantity or other trading conditions of goods, or can hinder or affect the ability of other operators to enter the relevant market. The lack of tools and rules for analyzing the dominant position of the Internet market in the current “anti monopoly law” makes it difficult to identify the dominant position of the Internet market. In addition, it is necessary to prove that there is no justifiable reason for such restriction, and it has the consequence of competition damage. < / P > < p > in other words, it is difficult to conclude that the platform’s restriction on payment mode violates the anti monopoly law. However, from the perspective of some feedback, this limited choice behavior has aroused the disgust of some users, which may damage the consumer experience to a certain extent. From the actual results, some netizens have refused to use the US group because they can not use Alipay. < / P > < p > “those who treat consumers well will win more markets. When it comes to payment methods, I think we should respect consumers’ right to choose. ” Liu Junhai, a professor of law at Renmin University of China, said. He suggested that creating a consumer friendly enterprise concept should be the starting point of platform innovation, and at the same time, the platform should be encouraged to diversify and open the means of payment, and broaden more ways of payment. Didi Qingju bicycle has entered 150 cities