Why would JD.com, Tmall and Vipshop be fined 500,000 by the state? |Vipshop_Sina Finance_Sina.com


Original title: Jingdong, Tmall, Vipshop will be fined 500,000 yuan by the state

On the evening of December 30, the State Administration for Market Regulation (herein referred to as the “General Administration for Market Regulation” or the “General Administration”) issued a message on its official website stating that the three platforms of JD.com, Tmall, and Vipshop were imposed 50 Administrative penalty of a fine of 10,000 yuan.

It is worth mentioning that, not long ago, the State Administration of Justice filed an investigation into Alibaba’s suspected monopolistic behavior.

This time, the General Administration of Market Supervision once again made a big strike, and at the same time, once again released a strong signal for the three platforms of JD.com, Tmall and Vipshop.

  Why were Jingdong, Tmall and Vipshop fined?

The State Administration of Market Supervision aimed at price issues before and after the “Double Eleven”—specifically, it targeted the strong feedback from consumers before and after the “Double Eleven” on online shopping, including price increases and discounts, false promotions, and inducements. Issues such as transactions.

The General Administration stated on the official website that according to price monitoring andComplaintReporting and other related clues, the State Administration of Market Supervision has dealt with Beijing Jingdong Century Information Technology Co., Ltd. (namely Jingdong), Hangzhou Hao Chao E-commerce Co., Ltd. (namely Tmall), and Guangzhou Vipshop E-commerce Co., Ltd. (namely Vipshop). The company conducted an investigation into the improper price behavior of its self-operated business.

It should be noted that this is for the self-operated business of these three companies.

Open the three “Administrative Punishment Decisions” attached by the State Administration of Market Supervision on the relevant web pages, and you can see that JD.com, Tmall, and Vipshop each have certain improper price behaviors. Take an example:

Jingdong Mall: On November 4, 2020, the parties will sell Daoxiang Village Pastry Gift Boxes (commodity code 45035536302) and carry out a promotional activity of RMB 20 minus RMB 99, with a price tag of RMB 149. After investigation, the sales price of the product on November 3 was 139 yuan.

Tmall Supermarket: On December 4, 2020, the party concerned sold Olay Multi-effect Repairing Cream Moisturizing (product number 1331347038), and the product sales page indicated “Buy and get 2 facial masks worth 74 yuan”. After investigation, the price of the gift for 2 pieces in Tmall Supermarket on the same day was 56.3 yuan.

Vipshop: On November 26, 2020, the parties involved sold Apple laptops (commodity code: bare metal MPXU2CH/A silver), and the product sales page indicated “the low price of 7,999 yuan on the whole network”. Upon investigation, the party concerned was unable to provide proof that 7,999 yuan was the low price of the entire network.

It can be seen that on the self-operated e-commerce platforms most commonly used by these consumers, there have been many practices such as “price increase first and then price reduction”, “price indication is falsely high”, “abuse of the lowest price slogan of the entire network”, etc. Constituting price improper behavior.

  Why a fine of 500,000?

The General Administration emphasized in the “Administrative Punishment Decision” that the facts in the above examples are supported by evidence such as copies of business licenses, inquiry transcripts, screenshots of commodity sales pages, transaction snapshots, and transaction records.

It can be said that there is hard evidence.

The SAIC stated that the above-mentioned actions of the parties constituted the “price law” Article 14 (4) “using false or misleading price means to lure consumers or other business operators into dealing with them” improper price behavior.

According to Article 40 of the Price Law:

If the business operator commits one of the acts listed in Article 14 of this law, it shall be ordered to make corrections, the illegal income shall be confiscated, and a fine of less than five times the illegal income may be imposed; if there is no illegal income, a warning may be given and a fine may be imposed; if the circumstances are serious , Order to suspend business for rectification, or revoke the business license by the administrative department for industry and commerce”.

At the same time, according to Article 7 of the “Provisions on Administrative Penalties for Price Illegal Acts”:

Where a business operator violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Price Law and uses false or misleading price tactics to trick consumers or other business operators into dealings with them, they shall be ordered to make corrections, the illegal gains confiscated, and the illegal gains shall be 5 times or less Fine; if there is no illegal income, a fine of not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan shall be imposed.

In the end, on December 24, 2020, the State Administration made a penalty decision based on the above clauses and imposed a fine of RMB 500,000 on each of the above three companies. This can be said to be the top fine under the relevant penalties for improper price behavior. Level.

In addition to a fine of 500,000 yuan, the SAIC also imposed penalties of “order to correct” and “warning” on these three companies.

Of course, judging from the size of JD.com, Tmall, and Vipshop, the fine of 500,000 may not be a big one, but its warning signal is very obvious-and the General Administration chose to publish the “Administrative Punishment Decision” The release is also to alert other related companies.

  It’s time to manage the chaos of the e-commerce platform

This time the State Administration of Market Supervision imposed penalties on three companies, and the regulatory signals released are self-evident.

For a long period of time, my country’s e-commerce business has continued to vigorously develop. It has made great contributions to improving the efficiency of commodity flow, enriching consumers’ shopping choices and improving the consumption efficiency of the entire society. It also constitutes a digital economy. An important boost for growth-at the same time, there is indeed a lot of chaos on the e-commerce platform.

These chaos are especially obvious during the “Double Eleven” period. In order to increase the participation of consumers, both the platform and the merchants have adopted various methods, including some price operations such as “raise the price first and then lower the price”, “false bid price”, “exaggerated publicity”, and of course, there are also purchase orders. , Sale of fakes and a series of improper acts.

In particular, after the 11-year development of Double Eleven, although the regulatory authorities have repeatedly asked for the above-mentioned improper behavior to be eliminated, the above-mentioned behavior still exists on the platform and has been repeatedly prohibited.

And this time, it coincided with the country’s anti-monopoly on Internet platforms. The State Administration for Market Regulation took action to punish these actions, which also sounded the alarm for related e-commerce platforms.

After all, although the Internet e-commerce platform itself objectively promotes the improvement of transaction efficiency, it also poses a huge threat to physical stores; and they have the traffic and traffic compared to physical stores.Technical advantagesIn fact, illegal acts on price constitute more unfair competition for physical stores-for consumers, these acts are even more infringement of legitimate rights and interests.

Therefore, from multiple perspectives, the State Administration for Market Regulation should applaud this time.

For e-commerce platforms, this punishment is a clear and important signal as clear as platform anti-monopoly. Under the background of the country’s vigorous emphasis on regulating industry order and promoting the long-term and healthy development of platform economy, it has already enjoyed all the national policies and technology. E-commerce platforms that develop dividends have greater responsibilities and obligations to regulate their business behavior, otherwise they will be severely punished.

After all, the Internet has never been outside the law.

Massive information, accurate interpretation, all in Sina Finance APP

.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.