The Supreme Court Goes Online with Anti-Monopoly Law Principles

Published On 15/11/2014 | By Peta Stevenson | Litigation

In a recent article on China Law Insight, colleagues from our Beijing office have written about the recent Supreme Court decision of Qihoo v Tencent. Susan Ning, Peng Heyue, Yang Yang, Qiu Weiqing, Sarah Eder, and Guo Shaoyi note that as the first private action in relation to abuse of dominance heard by the Supreme Court, the case is by no means the most straightforward, particularly given:

  • the complicated facts,
  • the multitude of data, and
  • the fact that the online business model is somewhat different from conventional industries.

As such, the  case is certainly not a text-book example of abuse of dominance private actions, with simple facts and a straightforward application of the law. In their article, Susan, Kate and their team consider the facts underlying the dispute as well as the Supreme Court’s approach to 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.

Read the full article here.

Photo credit:  Susan Nilson, Message in a bottle, Flikr CC BY-SA 2.0

Like this post? Share it... Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+

About The Author

is a partner in the Sydney office of King & Wood Mallesons where she specialises in competition litigation with experience in a wide range of jurisdictions. Peta also advises clients on the application of the anti-competitive conduct, consumer protection and access provisions of the Competition & Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and related state legislation. In 2001/02 she undertook her LLM at the University of Cambridge, during which time she developed a passionate if fleeting interest in rowing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

11 + 5 =