HomeTechnologyAlibaba to pay $140 million in China and why JD.com is ‘happy’...

Alibaba to pay $140 million in China and why JD.com is ‘happy’ about it – Times of India



Chinese online retailer JD.com has won an anti-monopoly lawsuit against its rival Alibaba. According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the High People’s Court of Beijing has ruled that Alibaba Group Holding Limited and its subsidiaries had abused China’s market dominance and has asked the company to pay one billion yuan (nearly $140 million). The Chinese court also noted that Alibaba adopted monopolistic practices known as “choosing one from two” that caused JD.com severe damages.
JD.com took to its official WeChat account to publish a statement that read: “This ruling is not only a fair decision for JD’s resistance against the ‘choose one out of two’ monopoly, but a landmark moment in upholding market fairness and competition order through the rule of law. It will be a significant moment in China’s anti-monopoly legal process.”
The report cites an Alibaba spokesperson saying they were aware of the ruling and “respect the court’s decision”.
What is “choosing one from two” e-commerce practice in China
Alibaba and JD.com, the two e-commerce giants in China had criticised each other for a practice called choosing one out of two. Under this practice, brands and merchants had been allegedly told that if they wanted to operate on either platform, they had to do it exclusively.

In 2021, Alibaba was fined a record $2.75 billion in an antitrust probe by Chinese regulators. The probe also stated that the company had abused the country’s market dominance.

Alibaba is also facing multiple lawsuits in the US. These lawsuits claim that the Chinese e-tailer allows merchants to sell fake products on its platforms. One such lawsuit alleges that several merchants were selling counterfeit versions of the popular children’s toy Squishmallows on Alibaba.
The lawsuit also alleges that Alibaba knew about these fake products and helped the sellers to infringe on the original company’s copyrights and trademarks.





Source link

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments