Research On The Application Of The General Provisions Of The Anti-Unfair Competition Law In The Internet Field

The Anti-Unfair Competition Law amended in 2017(in this article,the Anti-Unfair Competition Law refers exclusively to China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law,which is referred to as the "Anti-Law" except for the titles at all levels)sets up a "special article on the Internet" to regulate unfair competition in the online field.However,network technology not only exists in the new competition model,but also penetrates into the traditional competition behavior.In addition,in judicial practice,the general provisions of Article 2 of the Anticompetitive Law still apply and are applied in the adjudication of cases involving unfair competition on the Internet.By clarifying the academic concept of "general clause" in depth,the views and theories of various legal scholars are integrated to clarify the characterization of the general clause in Article 2 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law.Then,we analyze the amendments made to Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2017,and explore the role of the general provisions in filling legal loopholes and guiding the judicial application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.The theoretical foundation for the in-depth study of this paper is laid.The second general provision of China’s Anti-law is mainly divided into separate application and combined application in the network field.Using the empirical analysis method,we focus on the application status of the second general provision in the new network unfair competition disputes,and arrive at the problems existing in the application of the second general provision of China’s Anti-law in the network field.First,there are different patterns of judicial decisions.By analyzing the application of Article 2 of the General Provisions in new types of online unfair competition disputes,it is easy to find that judges have different modes of adjudication when determining the acts involved in the cases,either in the mode of protecting rights or in the mode of regulating acts.Secondly,there are different standards for determining business ethics.Whether applying the general provisions alone or in combination,the judges inevitably reasoned about the standards of business ethics,and most of this reasoning was a reflection of the subjective will of the judges,or even worse,the standards of business ethics were only skimmed over.Thirdly,the application of the law is inconsistent.When applied in combination,there is not only the problem of the application of the law,but also the dilemma of how to coordinate with the application of the "Internetspecific article".To address the phenomenon of inconsistent standards of business ethics in judicial practice,it is recommended that a multi-interest weighing system be implemented in judicial decisions,with a view to concretizing the standards of business ethics in individual cases.Secondly,the nature of competition law as a conduct law should be clarified and the mode of judicial adjudication should be standardised,so as to solve the problem of inconsistent adjudication by judges in defining the justification of the conduct involved in cases in practice.Once again,after solving the subjective problem,the author suggests that the Supreme People’s Court should issue guiding cases in a timely manner and improve the relevant items of the Judgment Document Network’s class case search,so as to solve the practical difficulties from the objective reality level.Finally,it is suggested that the relationship between the general provisions and the Internet-specific articles be correctly handled,and the path of application of the general provisions be accurately grasped,so as to ensure that decisions are made in practice strictly in accordance with the elements of application of the general provisions,and that substantive justice is maintained by procedural justice.