By Susan Ning, Peng Heyue, Yang Yang, Qiu Weiqing, Sarah Eder, and Guo Shaoyi


On 15 November 2011, Qihoo issued proceedings against Tencent in the Guangdong Higher Court, asserting that Tencent had abused its dominant position, marking the beginning of the first anti-monopoly case in the internet arena. Qihoo lost the first trial and appealed. On 16 October 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its final decision, rejecting Qihoo’s appeal and upholding the first-instance court judgment. This was the first anti-monopoly case heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment elaborates detailed fundamental principles of anti-monopoly law, in particular in the context of abuse of dominance, which offers guidance and rules for future anti-monopoly litigation, especially those concerning abuse of dominance.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Goes Online with Anti-Monopoly Law Principles:A Review of Qihoo v.s. Tencent Abuse of Market Dominance Case

By Susan Ning and Huang Jing

On 7 September 2011, the Shanxi Combined Transportation Group Company (SCTG) filed an administrative law suit with the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court against the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways (the "SCTG Case"). On 15 September 2011, the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court accepted the SCTG Case.

SCTG alleged that it had submitted two applications to the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways for establishing new railway ticket agent stores on 25 January 2011; but Taiyuan Bureau of Railways did not respond to such applications.  According to SCTG, Taiyuan Bureau of Railways’ conduct was a violation of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML), and constituted administrative omission.   Thus SCTG filed the administrative lawsuit.Continue Reading Taiyuan Bureau of Railways Sued for Antitrust Violation