China's Competition and Antitrust Regulators Revamped

SAMR was officially established on March 21, 2018. Its current decided organization includes 10 internal departments, of which, Examination Division I, Examination Division II and Examination Division III are responsible for business operator concentrations; the Monopoly Agreement Division, Abuse of Dominant Market Position Division and Administrative Monopoly Division are respectively responsible for investigating and handling the corresponding monopoly acts; and the other four relevant departments include the General Office, Competition Policy Division, Supervision Division and Coordination Division. SAMR has been extremely active in the few short months since its establishment, sequentially announcing penalty decisions against PEBV, Tianjin Haiguang and AMD, Yunnan Metropolitan Construction Investment Group, etc., and launching investigations against the abuse of administrative power by the Inner Mongolian Public Security Department and the Beijing Traffic Management Department to eliminate or restrict competition and the sharp increase in the price of an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Qualcomm's acquisition of NXP for US$44 billion also ultimately miscarried due to the submitted plan failing to secure the nod of SAMR. Additionally, the anti-monopoly issues accompanying the current rapid growth of newly emerging science, technology and industries are a challenge that SAMR is facing, with regulating and controlling anti-monopoly acts in sectors such as big data and algorithms, e-commerce platforms and multi-channel sales, standard essential patent licenses in the communication industry, etc. certain to become one of the key focuses in SAMR's work in the future.

3 . WHAT WAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINES LEVIED IN THE PAST YEAR? WHAT WAS THE BIGGEST CASE?

According to publicly available information, the total amount of anti-monopoly fines exceeded Rmb600 million last year, and the number of anti-monopoly law enforcement cases escalated, involving numerous industries, such as electric power, manufacturing, chemicals and medicine. Among those cases, the following are some of the ones that received the most attention:

(1) PVC horizontal pricing monopoly agreement case

This was the first anti-monopoly case in which WeChat records served as key evidence. The 18 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) operators involved in the case, in their sales in 2016, held a series of market performance and sales discussions under the banner of the “Northwest Chlor-Alkali Alliance” and reached a price increase monopoly agreement through discussions in a WeChat group. The companies that took the lead role were assessed fines equivalent to 2% of their 2016 sales turnover while the other 16 enterprises were assessed fines equivalent to 1% of their sales turnover.

(2) Horizontal pricing monopoly agreement case on paper-making enterprises

This was the first monopoly agreement case in which an industry association had its registration revoked. Seventeen paper makers in the Fuyang District, Hangzhou reached and implemented a rolled paperboard pricing monopoly agreement, causing the price of paperboard to jump approximately 23%. In addition to the enterprises involved being assessed fines, the Fuyang District Paper Making Association, as the organizer and supervisor that formulated and implemented the monopoly agreement, had its registration revoked in accordance with the law by the registrar of associations. Although industry associations being fined is not an uncommon occurrence, being legally shut down was a first.

(3) Abuse of monopoly position case on methyl salicylate active pharmaceutical ingredients

As the first pharmaceutical anti-monopoly case in 2017, the Hubei Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce, in January 2017, as authorized by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, fined Wuhan Xinxing Jingying Pharmaceuticals Co ., Ltd. a total of Rmb2,209,221 for allegedly abusing its dominant market position. This was the first pharmaceutical anti-monopoly case in 2017.

(4) Abuse of dominant market position case on isoniazid active pharmaceutical ingredients

The NDRC is also continuing to exercise its authority in the pharmaceutical industry. It fined Zhejiang Second Pharma Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Handewei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. a total of Rmb443,900 for abusing their dominant market positions by selling isoniazid at an unfairly high price and refusing to deal with downstream enterprises without just cause.

(5) Monopoly investigation on port and wharf abuse

The NDRC launched anti-monopoly investigations against Shanghai Port and Tianjin Port in April 2017, and in the course of the investigations discovered abusive acts such as the ports restricting dealing by requiring the use of the services of their affiliates, unfairly high prices, compelled dealing, imposing mandatory services on transaction counterparties, non-compete clauses, loyalty clauses and other such unreasonable transaction conditions. Later in September, the NDRC, together with the Ministry of Transport and the China Ports & Harbors Association, jointly held a meeting and demanded that all ports throughout the country conduct self-investigations of and correct the issues discovered during the investigation. Most ports have already implemented the corresponding rectification measures.

4 . WHAT ARE THE TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF ANTITRUST LITIGATION IN THE PAST YEAR?

By the end of 2017, courts at every level around China had accepted 700 first instance civil monopoly cases, more than 90% of which involved the abuse of dominant market position. The number of cases accepted is showing a year on year upward trend, involving a wide range of industries, covering sectors such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, food, the internet, etc. The involvement of hi-tech industries in legal actions is particularly frequent.

What stands in sharp contrast to the ever-increasing number of cases is the extremely low rate of success in such actions, with Wu Xiaoqin's victory being one of the few cases in which the plaintiff prevailed. The difficulty in anti-monopoly legal actions can be traced to the difficulty in adducing evidence. How to reasonably allocate the burden of proof will likely become the primary issue requiring resolution in future civil anti-monopoly legal actions. Some typical litigation cases in 2017 are discussed below:

(1) Wu Xiaoqin vs. Shaanxi Broadcast & TV Network Intermediary (Group) Co., Ltd., a bundling transaction dispute case

This is one of the few anti-monopoly litigation cases in which the plaintiff prevailed. Shaanxi Broadcast & TV Network Intermediary (Group) Co., Ltd. increased its monthly digital television use fee from Rmb25 to Rmb30 on the grounds of upgrading its menu. The plaintiff, Wu Xiaoqin, took Shaanxi Broadcast to court, alleging that the act constituted a compelled tie-in sale, and demanded refund of the overcharge. In its judgment, the court at first instance found that Shaanxi Broadcast's practice constituted a tiein sale or the imposition of other unreasonable transaction conditions. However, the appeals court quashed the first instance judgment and dismissed Wu Xiaoqin's complaint. After further appeal to the Supreme People's Court, Shaanxi Broadcast's act was ultimately found to constitute a tie-in sale and the first instance judgment was upheld.

(2) Hainan Provincial Price Bureau vs. Hainan Yutai Technology Feed Co., Ltd. (Yutai), an administrative penalty dispute

This case was an administrative legal action. In the course of the trial, the court took the stance that the “illegal per se rule” is applicable in the course of investigating and handling restriction of the resale price by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority. As Yutai had agreed upon the resale price for products with its distributors, it was fined Rmb200,000 by the Hainan Provincial Price Bureau. Yutai then instituted an administrative legal action in respect of this. The court at first instance held that the Price Bureau wrongly applied the law, and when investigating and handling a vertical monopoly agreement it was necessary to take into consideration the effect of eliminating or restricting competition. The Hainan Higher People's Court, the appeals court, distinguished between an administrative authority investigating and handling a vertical monopoly agreement and a single civil entity claiming actual losses arising due to a vertical monopoly act: in the latter, namely a civil case, the precondition is that actual losses are caused and it is necessary to substantiate an effect of eliminating or restricting competition; however, for administrative law enforcement, the effect of eliminating or restricting competition is not a necessary condition, and the court accepted that an anti-monopoly law enforcement authority has a certain degree of discretion in determining a monopoly agreement.

(3) Dianping vs. Baidu

This is another unfair competition dispute in the internet industry that drew a lot of attention. This case originated in Baidu Maps displaying complete Dianping information sourced from dianping.com when a user did a merchant search, an act that Dianping deemed a “free riding” act of unfair competition. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court found that this act by Baidu violated the good faith principle and commercial ethics in the general provisions of Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, and the Dianping information itself that Baidu Maps was citing had commercial value. Thus, this kind of act was in essence “using the fruits of another's labor without permission” and constituted unfair competition.

5 . WHAT ARE THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE MERGER CONTROL REGIME?

In 2017, the Ministry of Commerce received a total of 400 business operator concentration filing cases, 353 of which it opened a case, and it concluded 344 cases. Of the concluded cases, seven resulted in conditional approvals, setting a new record since the implementation of the Anti-monopoly Law; there was a marked increase in major and complex cases, with non-simple cases accounting for 30%; manufacturing cases accounting for more than 50%; and cases in which the amount involved was at least Rmb10 billion accounting for more than 20%. Looked at from the perspective of review procedure efficiency, in 2017, the average time required for opening and concluding cases was reduced by 14.2% and 8% respectively as compared to the previous year, and 97.8% of simple cases were concluded at the preliminary review stage. Furthermore, in addition to the concentration reviews, the Ministry of Commerce cooperated in supervisory law enforcement measures, publicly assessing penalties in six cases that were not filed in accordance with the law and also monitored the implementation of 24 conditional cases.

In the seven conditional approval cases, the Ministry of Commerce, unlike the anti-monopoly/antitrust authorities of other countries, leaned towards imposing behavioral remedies rather than structural remedies, and paid close attention to the provision of price and supply related commitments by downstream customers.

(1) Business operator concentration case involving the merger between Dow and Dupont

With respect to the merger of the two chemicals giants Dow and Dupont, the Ministry of Commerce held that the same could have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition in China's market for selective herbicides for paddy fields and market for insecticides for paddy fields, and that it would have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition in the global acid co-polymer market and ionomer market. Thus, it ultimately approved the deal with conditions. The Ministry of Commerce required that both parties spin off the registration of several types of formulation related products; additionally, it required that both parties supply specific products to Chinese companies at a reasonable price and on a nonexclusive basis for five years after closing of the deal.

(2) Agrium and PotashCorp of Saskatchewan merger case

Agrium and PotashCorp publicly announced completion of the deal in January 2018, establishing the world class agricultural input and service provider Nutrien. The Ministry of Commerce approved the merger deal with conditions, including the post-merger entity divesting equity in ICL, APC and SQM held by PostashCorp and requiring that the two parties ensure the continued stable and reliable supply and export of potash fertilizer to China on a competitive basis, and that the export quantities be, on average, equivalent to or higher than those during the past five years.

6 . WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR INDUSTRIES PENALIZED OR AFFECTED BY ANTITRUST CASES?

In the cases handled by the NDRC and SAIC in 2017, there were cases involving monopoly agreements in the PVC industry, paper-making industry, mobile phone industry, insurance industry, electric power industry, etc. while the industries in which there were instances of abuse of dominant market position were focused in the pharmaceutical industry, ports and logistics industry, telecommunication industry, electric power supply and water supply industry, etc. In short, the pharmaceutical industry, as well as such industries like water and power that are related to people's livelihood have consistently been one of the focuses of law enforcement, and 2017 was no exception. Last year, the Ministry of Commerce rendered a total of seven conditional approval decisions, with the cases involving sectors such as chemicals, agriculture, semi-conductors, medical devices and communications.

7 . WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE TRADE WAR AND EXPORT/IMPORT CONTROLS ON ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW–WHAT DO CHINESE COMPANIES NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF?

On September 17, 2018 (GMT-5), US President Trump announced the imposition of 10% customs tariffs on US$200 billion worth of Chinese exports to the US, involving 6,031 products, including those in high and precision technology industries such as semiconductors and chemicals, and also including mass consumer products such as food and furniture. The recently enacted Export Control Reform Act of 2018 expressly strengthens export controls on “emerging and critical technologies”. On August 1, the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce updated its entity list, adding 44 Chinese companies to the list. Under the US-China trade war and changes in the two countries' export controls, it is possible that, out of political considerations, the two countries could make anti-monopoly law enforcement and reviews of business operator concentrations against relevant enterprises more stringent. Based on this, Chinese companies engaging in trading businesses or carrying out M&A or other such deals with US companies should treat anti-monopoly compliance and self-examination with great care, determine whether the company's scope of business or relevant imports or exports fall into the key sectors involved in the trade dispute between the two countries and assess the possible impact that the same could have on the trade or M&A deal, comprehensively analyzing with the assistance of a professional legal team the feasibility of the deal and the risk response strategy and, in respect of the plan for handling the failure of the trade or deal, reduce the potential loss to the greatest extend possible, so as to ensure the lawful rights and interests of the company.

8 . WHAT DO LAWYERS ON ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS NEED TO INCLUDE WHEN ADVISING CLIENTS TO ENSURE COMPETITION COMPLIANCE?

When providing anti-monopoly legal advice to clients, it is first necessary to figure out the type of anti-monopoly risk that could exist, firstly determining whether it is the monopoly agreement or abuse of dominant market position, and secondly, in respect of the risk in question, draw up the proper handling and response in light of the client's industry, business model, etc. For example, under a monopoly agreement, further classifying it as a horizontal monopoly agreement or vertical monopoly agreement. In vertical monopoly agreements, the law enforcement authority will focus its attention on restrictions on resale prices and the client needs to prudently handle the arrangements with upstream and downstream enterprise so as to avoid or minimize price restriction risks. Non-price restrictions mainly include market and customer segmentation, and an assessment needs to be carried out on whether the same will give rise to a lock-in effect. As to acts of abusing a dominant market position, they involve determination of dominant market position and demonstration of legitimate reasons.

9 . ARE THERE ANY REGULATIONS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS IN CHINA?

In 2017, there were more new complementary anti-monopoly regulations issued or under consideration. On July 20, 2017, the NDRC issued the Guidelines for the Pricing Acts of Industry Associations, identifying the anti-monopoly risks associated with industry associations and pricing related acts. The NDRC additionally issued the Guidelines for the Pricing Acts of Operators Dealing in Pharmaceuticals and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients That Are in Short Supply on November 16, the first guidelines to address pricing monopolies in a specific industry. On September 8, 2017, the Ministry of Commerce published the Measures for the Review for Concentrations of Business Operators (Draft Amendments for Comments), publicly seeking comments. This will be the first time that the Measures for the Review for Concentrations of Business Operators are revised since their implementation eight years ago.

Furthermore, the legislative plan of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress published on September 7, 2018 includes the revision of the Anti-monopoly Law. A fair competition review mechanism could be included, and a sound pre-case review mechanism and potent administrative law enforcement means will be key focuses of the current revision. The PRC Electronic Commerce Law passed earlier will be implemented from January 1, 2019. The Law expressly prohibits e-commerce platforms from abusing their dominant positions and also includes provisions in respect of compelled tie-in sales and tie-in sales compelled in a disguised manner by e-commerce platforms.

10 . CHINA HAS GROWN EXPONENTIALLY IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS–HOW DOES THIS IMPACT ON ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS ? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE TRENDS OBSERVED?

In discussing the impact of science and technology on anti-monopoly law, one cannot skirt the relationship between intellectual property rights and anti-monopoly law. The improper exercise of intellectual property rights could be made subject to anti-monopoly law. On March 23, 2017, the Anti-monopoly Commission of the State Council published the Anti-monopoly Guidelines for the Abuse of Intellectual Property (Draft for Comments), which set forth specific provisions on general issues such as definition of the intellectual property market and the impact of intellectual property on competition, as well as on monopoly agreements, abuse of dominant market position and business operator concentrations. The NDRC issued in succession on November 16, 2017 and March 23, 2016 the Guidelines for the Pricing Acts of Operators Dealing in Pharmaceuticals and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients That Are in Short Supply and the Anti-monopoly Guidelines for the Automotive Industry (Draft for Comments). It can be anticipated that, against the background of the rapid development of high and precision technology industries, more targeted industry codes and guidelines will become the norm in anti-monopoly legislation and law enforcement.

Jet Deng, Senior Partner (Beijing)

Dentons

Jet Deng is a partner of Dentons. Jet earned his JM degree in 2005 and his PhD degree in International Economic Law in 2012 at the University of International Business and Economics. He has also been a part-time researcher at the Competition Law Center of the University of International Business and Economics since 2005.

Jet is an experienced attorney-at-law specialized in antitrust practice. Jet began to concentrate on antitrust practice since 2004 – a time even before the enactment of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in the PRC legal system. Jet has represented clients in a wide range of issues in relation to anti-monopoly law and has been highly recommended for his professionalism and value added to the client in investigations, merger control and court proceedings. He has rich hands-on experience in handling high-profile investigations concerning cartel, resale price maintenance (RPM) and abuse of dominance, as well as a number of merger control filings for cross-border M&A. Jet is one of the practitioners who are often entrusted to represent clients on the most contentious and pioneering anti-competition issues before Chinese courts.

In addition to practice, Dr. Deng has been an active participant in legislative consultations and one of the experts who are regularly invited to provide training for anti-monopoly law enforcement authorities in China. He is one of the few practitioners who are also prolific writers contributing to the academic discussion of competition law.

Jet's working languages include Mandarin and English.

Ken Dai, Partner (Shanghai)

Dentons

Ken Dai earned his LLB and LLM respectively from the China University of Political Science and Law, and the University of Bristol in United Kingdom. Currently, Ken Dai is the member of the Antitrust Committee of the IBA, the Competition Committee of the IPBA, the Outbound Investment and the Antitrust Committee at the Shanghai Bar Association and Asian Competition Forum. In addition, he is the columnist of Forbes China.

Ken Dai specializes in antitrust investigation, antitrust compliance, merger filing and private antitrust litigation. He is one of the first lawyers who practice antitrust law in China. He has advised certain multinational companies on establishing antitrust law manuals and compliance programs. He has also advised numerous multinationals on the application of the PRC Anti-monopoly Law and enforcement policies in relation to distribution practices in China. In addition, he has a diversity of experience advising both foreign companies and domestic enterprises in making merger filings before MOFCOM. Furthermore, he has regularly assisted and represented certain enterprises in completing and bringing private antitrust litigations in China. He has experience advising companies in handling the legal issues between intellectual property rights and antitrust laws.

Ken's working languages include Chinese, English and Cantonese.

1 . 将三家反垄断机关相整合并组建国家市场监督管理总局 (市场监管总局) 最重要的影响是什么？

此前，在国务院反垄断委员会的组织、协调和指导下，我国反垄断执法职能分别由三个机构专属管辖。其中，商务部管辖经营者集中，国家发改委专司价格垄断，国家工商总局则负责非价格垄断。三合一之后将改变过去三家分治导致管辖交叉、冲突等问题。

例如，此前发改委与工商总局在调查垄断案件时以是否涉及价格行为为权限分界，而现实中往往价格垄断行为与非价格垄断行为错综交织，导致了权限交叉。而且，发改委一直采取概括授权模式，与工商总局的个案授权模式相比，给予了地方执法机构更大的权限和激励，导致两者相比，工商总局给人以执法力度较弱的印象。而此次反垄断执法机构的整合，有利于改变这一情况，从而使得非价格垄断行为的查处可以与价格垄断行为双管齐下。除此以外，机构整合还将导致执法机构内部信息沟通交流的便利，例如此前与另两者权限交叉较少的商务部，专门负责经营者集中审查；而在合并后，负责集中审查的部门与负责行政调查的部门将更有可能分享信息，从而给企业合规带来更大的挑战。

2 . 市场监管总局成立至今面临哪些挑战，取得了哪些成就？

市场监管总局于2018 年3 月21 日下午正式成立。目前决定的机构设置包括十个内设部门，其中，审查一处、审查二处、审查三处均负责经营者集中；垄断协议处、滥用市场支配地位处、行政垄断处分别负责查处相应的垄断行为；四个其他相关部门包括办公厅、竞争政策处、监督处和协调处。市场监管总局在成立之后的短短数月中动作频频，先后公布了针对PEBV、天津海光与AMD、云南城投等的处罚决定，开展了对内蒙古公安厅和北京市公安局公安交通管理局滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为以及原料药暴涨问题的调查，高通恩智浦440 亿美金的世纪收购案也因为所提出的方案无法获得市场监管总局首肯而最终流产。与此同时，伴随着当前新兴科技和产业迅猛发展出现的反垄断问题是总局所面临的挑战，如何调控针对大数据与算法，电子商务平台与多渠道销售，通讯行业标准必要专利许可等领域的垄断行为无疑将成为总局未来工作的重点内容。

3 . 去年的罚款总额是多少？有哪些重大案件？

根据公开信息，去年全年反垄断罚款总额逾六亿元，反垄断执法案件数量攀升，涉及电力、制造、化工、医疗等诸多行业。这些案件中，受到广泛关注的主要有如下这些：

(1) PVC 横向价格垄断协议案

该案是首例以 “微信” 纪录作为关键证据的反垄断案件，涉案的18家聚氯乙烯树脂 (PVC) 经营者在2016年销售中，以 “西北氯碱联合体” 的名义先后召开多次市场行情和销量讨论会议，并通过微信群讨论并达成涨价的价格垄断协议。其中起领导带头作用的公司被处以2016年销售额2％的罚款，而其它16家涉案企业被处以销售额1％的罚款。

(2) 造纸企业横向价格垄断协议案

这是首例行业协会被撤销登记的垄断协议案。杭州富阳区17家造纸企业因达成并实施卷筒白板纸价格垄断协议，致使白板纸价格上涨约23%。除涉案企业被处以罚款外，作为垄断协议制定和实施的组织者、监督者的富阳区造纸协会由社会团体登记管理机关依法撤销登记，虽然行业协会被罚并不罕见，但被依法撤销尚属首例。

(3) 水杨酸甲酯原料药滥用垄断地位案

作为2017年医药反垄断第一案，2017年1月，在国家工商总局的授权下，湖北省工商总局对武汉新兴精英医药有限公司涉嫌滥用市场支配地位行为进行了处罚，罚款总额为220.9221 万元，是2017 年医药反垄断第一案。

(4) 异烟肼原料药滥用市场支配地位案

国家发改委也在医药行业继续发力，因浙江新赛科药业有限公司、天津汉德威药业有限公司滥用市场支配地位，以不公平高价销售异烟肼原料药以及无正当理由拒绝与下游企业交易，对两家公司罚款共计44.39 万元。

(5) 港口码头滥用垄断调查

国家发改委从2017年4月起对上海港和天津港展开了反垄断调查，在调查过程中，发现相关港口存在要求使用下属企业服务的限定交易、不公平高价、强制交易、向交易对象附加强制服务、不竞争条款、忠诚条款等不合理交易条件等滥用行为，随后9月发改委会同交通运输部、中国港口协会联合召开会议，要求全国港口都要就调查中发现的问题自查自纠，多数港口已落实相应整改措施。

4 . 反垄断民事诉讼近年来有什么发展趋势？

至2017 年底，全国各级法院共受理垄断民事一审案件700件，其中90％以上为滥用市场支配地位案件。案件受理数量呈逐年增长趋势，案件涉及行业广泛，涵盖电信、医药、食品、互联网等领域，其中，高科技产业涉诉尤为频密。

与不断攀升的案件数量形成鲜明对比的是极低的胜诉率，仅有吴小秦等为数不多的原告胜诉。反垄断诉讼之难，究其根源在于原告举证的困难，如何合理划分举证责任，势将成为未来反垄断民事诉讼需要解决的首要问题。2017 年的典型诉讼案例如下：

(1) 吴小秦与陕西广电网络传媒(集团)股份有限公司捆绑交易纠纷案

这是反垄断诉讼中为数不多的原告胜诉的案例之一。因陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司以套餐升级为由，将其数字电视使用费由每月25元调至30元，原告吴小秦将陕西广电诉至法院，指控其行为构成强制搭售，要求退换多收取的费用。一审法院判决认定陕西广电该做法构成搭售或者附加其他不合理的交易条件，但二审法院撤销了一审判决、驳回吴小秦的起诉。最高人民法院提审后，最终认定陕西广电构成搭售，维持一审判决。

(2) 海南省物价局与海南裕泰科技饲料有限公司行政处罚纠纷

该案属于行政诉讼，在审理过程中，法院表明了对反垄断执法机关在查处限定转售价格的过程中适用“本身违法”原则的态度。海南省裕泰科技饲料公司因与经销商约定产品的转售价格，被海南省物价局处以20万元的罚款，裕泰公司就此提起了行政诉讼。一审法院认为海南省物价局适用法律错误，查处纵向垄断协议须考虑排除、限制竞争效果。二审海南高院则对行政机关查处纵向垄断协议与单个民事主体主张纵向垄断行为造成的实际损失进行了区分：后者即民事案件以造成实际损失为前提，须证明排除限制竞争效果；但行政执法则不以排除、限制竞争效果为必要条件，法院认可反垄断执法机构在认定垄断协议上拥有一定的自由裁量权。

(3) 大众点评与百度案

这是又一起备受关注的互联网行业不正当竞争纠纷。该案缘起是百度地图在用户进行商家搜索时会显示来自于大众点评网的完整点评信息，大众点评认为此举是一种不正当竞争的 “搭便车” 行为。上海知识产权法院认定百度公司此举违反《反不正当竞争法》第二条一般性规定中的诚实信用原则和商业道德，且百度地图所引用的点评信息本身具有经济价值，因此这种行为本质上属于“未经许可使用他人劳动成果”，构成不正当竞争。

5 . 经营者集中审查的发展趋势如何？

2017 年，商务部共收到经营者集中申报案件400 件，其中立案353 件，审结344 件。审结案件中，附条件批准7件，创《反垄断法》实施以来新高；重大复杂案件显著增多，非简易案件占比30% ；制造业案件占比超过50% ；金额100 亿元人民币以上案件占比超过20%。从审查程序效率来看，2017 年的平均立案时间和审结时间同比缩短14.2%和8%，97.8%的简易案件在初步审查阶段审结。此外，商务部在集中审查之外配合了监督性的执法措施，对6 件未依法申报案件公开作出处罚，且同时依法监督执行24 件附条件案件。

在附条件批准的7 个案件中，商务部仍然与其他国家的反垄断机构不同，倾向于附加行为性限制条件而非结构性限制条件，且关注向下游客户提供价格、供应量方面的保证。

(1) 陶氏与杜邦合并经营者集中案

对于陶氏与杜邦两大化工巨头的合并，商务部认为其对中国水稻选择性除草剂市场、水稻杀虫剂市场可能具有排除、限制竞争的效果，对全球酸共聚物市场、离聚物市场具有排除、限制竞争的效果，因而最终以附加限制性条件的方式批准了该笔交易。商务部要求双方剥离数种制剂相关的产品登记；同时要求双方在交易交割后五年内以合理价格、且在非排他性的基础上向中国公司供应特定产品。

(2) 加阳与萨斯喀彻温钾肥合并案

加阳公司与萨斯喀彻温钾肥公司于2018年1月对外宣布交易完成，成立了世界一流的农作物投入品及服务的供应商—Nutrien 公司。商务部以附加限制性条件的方式批准了该笔合并交易，其中所附条件包括合并后的实体剥离萨钾持有的以色列化工、阿拉伯钾肥和智利化学矿业的股权，同时，商务部要求双方确保在竞争性基础上继续稳定、可靠地向中国供应出口钾肥，且出口量应与过去五年平均相等或更高。

6 . 主要有哪些行业因反垄断法案件受到处罚或影响？

2017年发改委与工商负责的案件中，涉及垄断协议的案件有PVC行业、造纸行业、手机行业、保险业、电力行业等，而与滥用市场支配地位相关的行业则集中于医药行业、港口物流业、电信业、电力供应与自来水供应行业。由此归纳，医药行业以及水电等与民生领域相关的行业一直是执法重心之一，而2017年也并未例外。商务部去年全年共作出七起附条件批准决定，案件涉及化工、农业、半导体、医疗器械、通信等领域。

7 . 贸易战和进出口管控对反垄断法有何影响；中国企业需要注意哪些方面？

美国时间2018年9月17日下午，美国总统特朗普对外宣布将对2000亿美元中国输美产品加征10%的关税，涉及6031项产品，包括半导体、化工等高精尖产业，也包括食品、家具等大众消费品，近日通过的《2018出口管制改革法案》明确加强对“新兴和关键技术” 的出口控制，8月1日，美国商务部产业安全局更新实体清单，有44 家中国公司被纳入名单之中。在中美贸易战和两国出口管控的变化下，两国出于政治考量而严格对相关企业的反垄断执法与经营者集中审查似为可能。基于此，与美国公司开展贸易业务或者进行并购等交易的中国公司，应审慎对待反垄断合规与自查，确定公司经营范围或相关进出口商品是否属于两国贸易争端的重点关注领域，进而评估对贸易或并购交易所可能产生的影响，在专业律师团队的协助下，全面分析交易的可行性与风险应对策略以及应对贸易或交易失败的处理方案，最大限度的减少可能的损失，保证其合法权益。

8 . 反垄断法律师在为客户提供反垄断合规咨询时需要考虑哪些内容？

在为客户提供反垄断法律咨询的时候，首先需要厘清可能存在的反垄断风险类别，先判断是垄断协议还是滥用市场支配地位，其次针对不同类别，结合客户自身的行业、经营模式等做出相应的处理与应对，例如垄断协议下再细分为横向垄断协议与纵向垄断协议，其中纵向垄断协议中限制价格转售是执法机构的关注重点，客户需审慎处理上下游企业之间的安排，以避免或最小化价格限制风险，非价格类的限制则以市场划分、客户划分为主，需要评估是否会产生封锁效应；而对于滥用市场支配地位行为，则涉及市场支配地位的认定以及正当理由的论证。

9 . 目前是否在考虑制定法规，以进一步加强中国的反垄断法？

2017年仍然有一些新的反垄断配套法规刚刚出台或在酝酿之中。2017年7月20日，发改委发布了《行业协会价格行为指南》，对行业协会与价格相关行为的反垄断风险进行了识别。发改委还在11月16日颁布了《短缺药品和原料药经营者价格行为指南》，是首部出台的针对特定行业的价格垄断指南。商务部于2017年9月8日公布了《经营者集中审查办法（修订草案征求意见稿）》并公开征求意见，这将是现行《经营者集中审查办法》实施八年后的首次修改。

此外，2018 年9 月7 日，十三届全国人大常委会立法规划公布包括了反垄断法的修订，公平竞争审查机制或将写入，健全的案前审查机制和强有力的行政执法手段都将是本次修订的重中之重。在此之前通过的《中华人民共和国电子商务法》将于2019 年1 月1 日起施行，电子商务法明令禁止电商平台滥用支配地位，同时对电商平台强制或变相强制搭售的行为作出了规定。

10 . 中国在短期内取得如此迅猛的技术进步，这对反垄断法规有何影响？有哪些可见的趋势？

谈到科技对反垄断法的影响，绕不开知识产权与反垄断法之间的关系。知识产权的不当行使可能会受到反垄断法的规制，国务院反垄断委员会办公室于2017年3月23日公布了《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南 (征求意见稿)》，就涉及知识产权的市场界定和竞争影响等一般问题以及垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位和经营者集中作出了具体的规定。国家发改委先后于 2017 年 11 月 16 日和2016 年3 月23 日颁布了《短缺药品和原料药经营者价格行为指南》及《关于汽车业的反垄断指南 (征求意见稿)》。可以预见，在高精尖产业的快速发展背景下，具有更强针对性的行业规范与指南会成为反垄断立法、执法的常态。

邓志松 高级合伙人（北京）

大成律师事务所

邓志松律师是大成律师事务所合伙人。他在对外经济贸易大学接受法学教育，于2005 年获得硕士学位，2012 年获得博士学位。他自2005 年起一直在对外经济贸易大学竞争法中心从事兼职研究员工作。

邓律师是专注于反垄断实务的资深律师。早在2004 年——《反垄断法》在中国法律体系中尚未生效之时，即投身于反垄断实务。邓律师代理客户处理各类反垄断纠纷，其在反垄断调查、经营者集中和法院诉讼中表现出的专业能力和为客户创造价值得到高度赞赏。他曾处理备受关注的涉及卡特尔、固定转售价格和滥用市场支配地位的反垄断调查案件，并为跨境并购、收购进行反垄断申报，具有丰富的实务经验。邓律师是在中国法院代理客户处理最具争议性和前沿性的反垄断纠纷的实务人士之一。

除了从事实务，邓律师还积极参与立法研讨，其也经常作为专家向中国反垄断执法机构提供专业培训。他是为数不多的在竞争法学术探讨方面著述丰富的实务人士之一。

邓志松律师的工作语言为普通话和英文。

戴健民 合伙人（上海）

大成律师事务所

戴健民律师分别在中国政法大学和英国布里斯托尔大学获得了法学学士和法学硕士学位。目前，戴健民律师分别是国际律师协会反垄断委员会委员、环太平洋律师协会竞争委员会成员、上海律师协会的国际投资与反垄断业务研究委员会委员，以及亚洲竞争法论坛的成员。同时，他也是福布斯中国的专栏作家。

戴健民律师专门从事反垄断调查、反垄断合规、并购申报和私人反垄断诉讼业务。他是第一批在中国实践反垄断法的律师之一。他为跨国企业提供意见，协助制定反垄断法手册和合规程序。与此同时，在中国反垄断法应用以及与中国分销业务有关的反垄断实施政策方面，他也为不少跨国企业提供法律服务。此外，他不时为向商务部提出经营者集中申报的国外公司和国内企业提供意见，在该业务领域拥有丰富经验。他还经常协助并代表企业在中国完成和引入反垄断诉讼，他也擅长帮助企业解决知识产权和反垄断法之间的法律问题。

戴健民律师的工作语言为：普通话、英文和粤语。