Research On Anti-monopoly Restriction Over Internet Corporations Who Refuse To Deal

In recent years, there was constant trouble because some Internet companies refuse totrade at home and abroad, these disputes’harm is not only Internet industry but also theeconomic growth. So it is necessary that we should bring anti-monopoly regulation intoforce. Article17and Article55of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law is main statutory authorityfor those companies. However, the above regulations are rigid principles and poormaneuverability. Besides, it is not specifically for Internet companies refuse to trade, thereforesome rules of this law have shortcomings. The Anti-monopoly Law and associatedconfiguration is not faulty and the relevant standards also are foggy, all this tended to losesafeguard in the rule of fair Internet marketing. China should be based on European Unionand some other countries’experience about refusing to trade. The article a logical train ofthought is:” the reason why Anti-monopoly Law restricts some Internet companies refuse totrade�'How to be considered as this behavior�'how to decide that is illegal�'what regulatoryduties Internet companies should undertake.” The text also uses some methods, such asconclusion、Comparative studies、systems analysis and so on.The text has four parts:Part I: the reason why Anti-monopoly Law restricts some Internet companies refuse totrade. The principal reason for meeting with resistance is that causes serious danger toeconomy. First, this behavior sets up barriers for other goods want to enter the market; it isrestraining competition and breaking up the fair play order. Secondly, this behavior makeseconomy run Internet to be restricted, and it aims at small and medium Enterprise Network,but as time rolled by, the collectivity innovation capability will be battered and Internetindustry innovation also will be infringed. Finally, the behavior docked customers of freeagency and damaged their rights and interests; the effects of restrict competition makes socialresources cannot be allocated efficiently, the public interest is severely damaged.Part II: How to be considered as this behavior. Based on such factors as uniformity in thelimitations of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law and the subjective aspect of behavior, theobjective aspect of uncertainty, I mainly find methods to Internet companies refuse to tradefrom subjective and objective two aspects. For a start, the Internet companies must be subjectand has the right to dominant market, definition the main from the concept and features of Internet companies, then I made a synthesis of market behavior standards、market structurestandards、market outcome standards, and diffusion the influential factor of definition theright to dominant market include market share、market entry barriers. Next, be identifiedobjective aspect from manifestation of Internet companies refuse to trade, and comparing withgeneral refusal to deal, of cause I will analyze the special behavior concepts with features, andmanifestations.Part III：The Internet companies refused to identify the illegality of their trade.Only theidentified refusing to deal ought to be regulated by Antitrust Law, so,this part is focus on theillegality recognition′s standard of the Internet companies refuse to trade. By introduce theillegality recognition’s standard of the US&EU, and then build our own illegalityrecognition’s standard on the basis of their advanced experience. We should introduce finevarieties of the theory of necessary facilities and be flexible in using in other illegalityrecognition′s standard.On the basis of using comprehensive analysis component of thenecessary facilities principle in West Country to clear the constitutive of ours andaccompanied by other standard for the new rules on product, rules on convenient facilities etc.By the way to build our illegality recognition’s standard and recognize the comprehensive ofthe illegality of refuse to trade of the internet corporate.Part IV: what regulatory duties Internet companies should undertake. The result is liablefor refusing to deal. So far, Chinese Anti-monopoly Law just has civil liability andadministrative responsibility, the two responsibilities on analysis was found to some rules areunclear and coercive power is not enough, so I have some proposals about liability toconsummate it. I think China should expand the scope of the main responsibility areas andintensify our efforts to reparation in civil liability; in my opinion our country should cautionin ordering to stop the illegal practice and the administrative fine should reasonable inadministrative responsibility. Finally, it is lack of criminal responsibility problems; I think weshould set up necessity and feasibility in criminal responsibility.