Article 50 - Search Engines and Mobile Phones

Beijing, China (PressExposure) January 15, 2010 -- 2009 saw the first full year of China’s AML in effect. During this period three private actions cases were decided upon by the courts in accordance with the powers granted by Article 50. This posting shall give a brief overview of the three private actions cases decided upon by the Chinese courts.

Tangshan Renren Information Co., Ltd (Renren) – Baidu Company (Baidu) The first case filled under the AML dealt with allegations of dominant market position within China’s search engine market. Baidu takes the number one position as China’s most popular search engine with Google coming second. Renren paid fees to Baidu to have their website listed on search results. Higher fees allowed for higher and more noticeable rankings.

Renren claimed that Baidu had a dominant position within China’s search engine market, as they felt that Baidu had restricted the Renren’s noticeability on search results. Baidu justified such actions on the basis that Renren’s website contained a number of links which were contrary to their policy. Renren sought reinstallement of their website, and compensation in the region of RMB 1,106,000 for loses incurred.

Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court found in favour of Baidu, by concluding that Baidu’s actions did not amount to monopolistic behaviour. A lack of supporting evidence damaged Renren’s chances of success.

Beijing Sursen Electronic Technology (Sursen) – Shanghai Shanda Network Development (Shanda) and Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information and Technology Co (Xuanting) Details of this case can be located under a previous post at the following location: http://blawg.lehmanlaw.com/english/archives/2009/11/10/698.html.

China Mobile Briefly touched upon in my previous post, this case concerned a private action brought to the courts by a Beijing lawyer and customer against China Mobile. The basis of the case concerned two sets of fees China Mobile were imposing on their customers. The courts did not pass judgement on this case, as the two parties reached a settlement. The settlement included a payment to the customer which according to China Mobile was not compensation, but merely as a gesture of gratitude for bringing it to the companies’ attention.

Press Release Submitted On: January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am
This article has been viewed 23134 time(s).