In order to give full play to the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases in carrying forward the spirit of socialist rule of law, clarifying the rules of market competition and promoting the formation of a law-based environment of fair competition, during the 2026 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week the Supreme People's Court released six typical antimonopoly cases on 10 September.

The six typical cases released this time involve important legal issues such as restricted dealing, differential treatment and unfairly high prices constituting abuse of a dominant market position, the identification of horizontal monopoly agreements, and judicial review of antimonopoly administrative penalties and administrative guidance. They cover industries closely related to people's livelihood such as agricultural product wholesaling, motor vehicle inspection, cement and concrete, as well as productive basic service industries such as electroplating wastewater treatment and piped steam. These cases collectively demonstrate the judicial responsibility of the people's courts in hearing monopoly cases fairly and in accordance with the law, safeguarding the order of fair competition and serving high-quality development, and mainly display the following features:

First, adhering to a people-oriented approach, so that the results of judicial protection of people's livelihood can be perceived and felt. Case 1 directly concerns the stability of the supply of agricultural products for urban and rural residents and the cost of vegetable distribution; Case 3 concerns the inspection-fee burden borne by the great number of motor vehicle owners; Cases 5 and 6 concern the prices of basic building materials such as cement and concrete, which ultimately affect housing construction and the cost of housing for the public. The monopolistic conduct in these cases occurred in livelihood-related industries, and the cost of the violations was ultimately passed on to ordinary consumers, directly affecting people's daily lives. The people's courts stopped the monopolistic conduct in accordance with the law, protected the lawful rights and interests of the victims, reduced livelihood costs by restoring market competition, safeguarded the order of fair competition, and effectively protected the people's "vegetable basket" and "wallet".

Second, focusing on basic services and promoting the coordinated and healthy development of the upstream and downstream of industrial chains. Cases 2 and 4 respectively involve productive basic service industries such as electroplating wastewater treatment and piped steam, which directly concern the production and operating costs and market competitiveness of upstream and downstream enterprises. In hearing such monopoly cases, the people's courts must, on the one hand, determine abuse of a dominant market position in accordance with the law, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have equal access to basic services and safeguard the competitive order of upstream and downstream markets; on the other hand, they must respect market rules, apply the criteria for determination prudently, and avoid bringing normal market pricing conduct within the scope of regulation under the Antimonopoly Law. By clarifying the boundaries of conduct, they promote sound interaction and coordinated development between upstream and downstream enterprises and enhance the resilience and competitiveness of industrial and supply chains.

Third, strengthening the guiding role of rules and delineating clear, stable and predictable competition rules for market entities. Case 1 makes it clear that forcing merchants to "pick one of two" through punitive differential treatment constitutes restricted dealing, thereby drawing the lawful boundary for the competitive conduct of operators in the field of agricultural product distribution; Case 2 clarifies the criteria for determining counterparties in equal circumstances, the rules for determining the loss caused by differential treatment and causation, and the victim's duty to mitigate damages, which helps ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises obtain basic services on an equal footing and participate fairly in market competition; Case 4 clarifies the antimonopoly review standards for short-term high-price conduct and long-term pricing mechanisms of operators, providing clear guidance for operators holding a dominant market position to exercise their market pricing power reasonably. The above cases clarify the rules for applying antimonopoly law in terms of the boundaries of conduct and the determination of liability, enhance the certainty and predictability of competition rules, help reduce compliance costs for market entities, stabilise business expectations and strengthen investment confidence, and reflect the responsibility of the people's courts in safeguarding the building of a law-based business environment through high-quality judicial services.

Fourth, deepening procedural coordination and improving the overall effectiveness of antimonopoly enforcement and adjudication. In Case 3, by accurately identifying monopoly issues in the hearing of a contract dispute and transferring jurisdiction and referring leads on violations in accordance with the law, the court achieved both judicial procedural coordination between different courts regarding civil contractual remedies and review of the validity of monopoly agreements, and a seamless connection between judicial handling of monopolistic violations and administrative investigation. Case 5, through judicial review of antimonopoly administrative guidance, supervises the boundaries of administrative enforcement powers while respecting professional administrative judgment and flexible administrative management, thereby promoting sound interaction between the judiciary and administrative enforcement. Case 6 clarifies the general rule that criminal fines and antimonopoly administrative fines may be applied in parallel, clarifies the criteria for determining "the same violation", and defines the division of functions between antimonopoly administrative enforcement and criminal punishment. These cases show that the people's courts attach importance to and actively promote the formation of an antimonopoly governance structure featuring pluralistic co-governance, procedural connectivity and coordinated efficiency, providing full-chain rule-of-law safeguards for the building of a unified national market.

Going forward, the people's courts will adhere to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, continue to strengthen antimonopoly adjudication, hear all types of monopoly cases fairly and efficiently in accordance with the law, continuously improve and consolidate antimonopoly adjudication rules, serve and safeguard the building of a unified national market with stronger judicial measures, and create a market environment of fair competition for high-quality development.

Contents of the 2026 Typical Antimonopoly Cases of the People's Courts

Case 1　Forcing merchants to "pick one of two" constitutes restricted dealing — Dispute over abuse of a dominant market position between Tan and a certain agricultural products company

Case 2　Setting different transaction conditions solely on the basis of different identity constitutes differential treatment — Dispute over differential treatment between a certain hardware company and a certain wastewater treatment company

Case 3　Monopoly issues should be identified in the hearing of civil cases and jurisdiction transferred and leads on violations referred in accordance with the law — Monopoly dispute between motor vehicle inspection company D and companies A, B and C

Case 4　Short-term price fluctuations generally do not constitute unfairly high prices — Dispute over abuse of a dominant market position between eight printing and dyeing companies in a certain locality and a certain electric power company

Case 5　Reminding of antimonopoly compliance obligations constitutes administrative guidance — Antimonopoly administrative reconsideration case between a provincial cement association and the State Administration for Market Regulation

Case 6　A fine for the crime of forced transaction generally does not affect an antimonopoly administrative fine — Antimonopoly administrative penalty and administrative reconsideration case between a certain company and a provincial administration for market regulation and the State Administration for Market Regulation

For the full text of the basic facts, judgment results and typical significance of the above six typical cases, please refer to the original link.

Source: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court　Date: 11 September 2026　Original link: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6046.html