An Analysis Of The Unfair Competition Cases Of Shielding Video Advertisement

As of March 20,2022,the keyword "Shield Video Advertising" is a search in Baidu,and there are nearly 97,300,000 records,which can be seen that the mask tool market is huge.The video operator believes that shielding behavior violates its legitimate rights and interests,and they have resorted to the court to the court.By organizing 38 practice cases,the following dispute focus is mainly involved: the first,the definition of competition relationship in the Internet.Second,the selection of the standardization of the new "anti-law" implementation standard.Third,shielded video advertising cases,behavioral,violations,and identification issues.Fourth,consumer interests and technical neutral defense reasons are established.The above dispute focus has the difference between theory and practice,so it is necessary to clearly specify the specific judgment of this behavior,which can specify the direction for the judicial referee of similar cases in the future,and at the same time regarding new other network competition in the Internet.It is determined that there is a certain extent value.Through the analysis of the above mentioned dispute focus,the following conclusions can be reached: the scope of the definition of competitive relationships in the background of the Internet era should not be limited to the same industry,but the scope of continuous expansion of definition will make the competitive relationship this as a prerequisite for unfair competition.The name is real,so the competition relationship is not the primary condition for judging the legitimacy of the behavior.In the selection of the standard basis,the Internet special entries restrict the development of technological innovation more than general terms,and they should still use general terms as a standard basis.Regarding unfair competition elements,the understanding of subjective and maliciousness should start from meaningism;determine the violation of business ethics and honesty trust standards to determine the dilemma of violations of behaviors.The interests between the three parties of the blocking function provider and the majority of online users;in addition to the business model of "free video+advertising",video operators can also create many other business models,so this model is not shaken;The damage brought by the other operators is objective.It cannot be judged that the competitive behavior is not properly determined because of the results of this objective damage.Only some "special" and "overfire" damage can be evaluated that an competitive behavior is improper.Tendent elements.Regarding the consumer interests and technical neutral defense reasons proposed by the defendant,the shielding behavior does not cause damage to the interests of consumers.Consumer interests and public interests should be considered in the substantive category.The case should be based on the premise of technical neutrality to stimulate the vitality of market innovation,not interfering with market competition.The market should be allowed to have more attempts and self-regulation space,encouraging operators to develop new technologies and explore better business models Essence.