Research On The Identification Of Unfair Competition For AD Blocking

Cases associated with AD blocking behavior in China also emerge in endlessly,the video website AD blocking around a long time before the court are to be regarded as unfair competition,recently,the Guangzhou Huangpu district court in Kuaileyangguang company v Weisi company case,thinking Weisi company does not constitute unfair competition,the Beijing Chaoyang district court in the following cases will also think as not constitute the unfair competition.These decisions have led to extensive discussions in academia and in the field of practice,and the controversial AD blocking that have been controversial have re-entered the public domain.AD blocking behavior also exists in the form of diversity,have special interception software,has a built-in browser intercept plug-ins,and specialized third-party plug-ins,this makes the advertising intercept of unfair competition that is more complicated,it is difficult to form a unified qualitative standards.AD blocking behavior that is more than video game between website and video intercept software,but also a matter of our entire video website industry development,at present our country the video website advertising different court blocking behavior cognizance,and video website advertising blocking behavior cognizance should form a unified standard,this is also the starting point and the meaning of this article.Therefore,this paper first sorts out the types of advertisement and advertising interception behaviors of China.Secondly,we classify the cases of advertisement interception behaviors involved in China in recent years into three categories,and conclude that the main disagreement point in the process of China's interception video website advertising behavior identification.Whether the interception behavior has subjective bad faith—"targeting",whether it violates business ethics,whether it causes a specific damage result,and whether it meets the requirements of economic development;it also draws lessons from the referee rules and concepts in German-American typical Internet-related cases;The first step in the process of cognizance of intercepting video site advertising behavior should consider subjective malicious—"targeted":advertisement blocking software has subjective malice,browser with advertisement blocking function does not have subjective maliciousness,and secondly,business in the Internet industry should be considered.Morality:Having an ad-blocking function for the browser industry is not a violation of business ethics,and the third is to consider specific damage results:In the market competition,damage will inevitably cause devastating damage to ad blockers.Fourth,economic factors should be considered:Respect for new New technology brings Fight,by comparing the manufacturing value added in the United States,Germany and the purchasing managers' index,should learn from American and Germany come to respect the judicial referee ideas competition to promote economic development.Therefore,all advertising interception behaviors cannot be deemed to constitute unfair competition,and specialized advertisement interception software constitutes unfair competition.Browsers with interception functions do not constitute unfair competition.