Last year, Chinese courts identified 31 cases of monopolistic practices in 2024, a 2.1-fold rise year-on-year.
China's Supreme Court said conduct in 17 appeal cases constituted monopolistic practices in 2024 — a substantial 4.6-fold increase from the previous year.
Nationwide, Chinese courts identified 31 cases of monopolistic practices in 2024, a 2.1-fold rise year-on-year. Of these, 14 judgements were in courts of first instance, He Zhonglin, deputy chief judge of the top court's intellectual property tribunal, said at a press conference yesterday.
Moreover, as detailed in a work report released concurrently with the press briefing, China's Supreme Court last year facilitated the settlement of a series of lawsuits alleging a prominent dairy company had abused its dominant market position, safeguarding the interest of diary farmers.
Overall, the number of monopoly cases accepted by Chinese courts has shown a steady growth trend, He noted. From 2013 to 2024, courts across the country accepted a total of 1,145 first-instance civil monopoly cases and concluded 1,071 cases.
Since its establishment on Jan. 1, 2019, until the end of 2024, the top court's IP tribunal accepted 282 second-instance civil and administrative monopoly cases and concluded 243 cases, including 97 cases in 2024 alone.
To foster an environment that protects fair market competition and encourages innovation, the courts have been strengthening antitrust efforts in key areas, such as those that impact people's livelihoods, online platforms and telecommunications.
He has also emphasized sustained attention to monopolistic practices in the fields such as platforms, technological innovation, intellectual property rights, people's livelihoods, industry associations, natural monopolies and abuse of administrative power.
To strengthen coordination between antitrust law enforcement and judicial proceedings, the courts have actively accepted and adjudicated follow-up civil lawsuits, He said.
They have also transferred indications of monopolistic violations discovered in civil lawsuits to enforcement agencies and heard administrative monopoly cases.
The top court's work report highlighted this coordinated approach, citing the example of cooperation between Beijing's High Court, the State Administration for Market Regulation and its local Beijing branch to enable timely sharing of leads.
These measures promote integration between administrative investigations and civil compensation, as well as coordination and unification of administrative enforcement standards and judicial adjudication standards, effectively forming a concerted effort between law enforcement and the judiciary, He said.
As well as cooperation in antitrust, the top court also shared other cross-agency cooperation efforts, such as providing judicial recommendations to Beijing's autonomous driving program authorities to enhance policies for overseeing data security in connected intelligent vehicles.
Source: MLex
