Research Of The Private Enforcement Of Anti-monopoly Law

In June 2010, Visa international credit card organization (hereinafter referred to as "Visa") issued a notice to its joint Citibank, requiring that from 1 August 2010, consumers with double monetary must pay via Visa, or else, they'll be punished. In August 2010, order Visa ban was past and consumers in Singapore and other regions can't pay via Union Pay.This article deals with the problem from the anti-monopoly law aspect and puts forward some solutions to perfect the system of private enforcement of law in our country. There are four parts in this article.In the first part, it involves the event of Visa blocking China union-pay overseas settlement channel. It mainly describes the Visa's background and the entire process.In the second part, it analyses the legal problems related to the event of Visa blocking China union-pay overseas settlement channel. The author analyses the nature of Visa blocking behavior in this part. Specifically, it mainly analyses from two aspects. First, Visa is suspected of implementation of the boycott trading behavior. Second, Visa is suspected of abusing the market dominance.In the third part, it emphatically analyzes the defects of the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system nowadays. It talks about the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law and the superiority of it compared to public implementation. On this basis, it analyzes the defects of private enforcement system in this case: 1.The main part of private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system is narrow. The rights of potential victims cannot be protected and is lacking of third-party relief system.2.The lawsuit pattern of private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system exists drawbacks, appropriate approaches before the judgment is unreasonable. Besides, there is a lack of corresponding supporting measures for the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system. It is lack of reasonable burden system of providing evidence and reasonable cost of anti-monopoly law execution undertake system. Based on these facts, this paper argues that both the civil liability clauses in anti-monopoly law and the responsibilities of the consumer protection organization also need to be improved. In the fourth part, to consummate the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system, it put forward a series of ideas. According to the problems reflected from the event, a lot of countermeasures are put forward as follows: First, found anti-monopoly public interest litigation to protect the lawful rights and interests of the victim; Second, through direct litigation, strengthen antitrust private implementation; Third, through founding incentive system to improve public antitrust participation; Forth, strengthen the rule of law publicity and education to enhance people's antitrust consciousness to protect their legitimate rights and interests. In this paper, the private enforcement of anti-monopoly law system needs further perfect, should play the positive role of the anti-monopoly law and safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the whole society. To achieve these, we still have a long way to go.