On March 23, 2026, the Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation, in conjunction with the Municipal Commerce Bureau and the Municipal Culture and Tourism Bureau, conducted a regulatory meeting and administrative guidance session with twelve platform companies. These included Trip.com, Qunar, Gaode, JD.com, Taobao Flash Sales, Meituan, Fliggy, Tongcheng Travel, Tujia, Xiaozhu, Douyin, and Kuaishou. Authorities presented the first batch of issues identified since the launch of a comprehensive campaign to curb "rat-race" competition among platforms and issued rectification demands.
The highlighted problems primarily focused on four areas:
1. Infringement on Merchant Autonomy Some platforms enrolled merchants in promotional activities without consent by altering backend settings. They employed technical means to monitor prices and compelled merchants to offer the lowest prices online, stripping them of pricing autonomy. These actions not only caused operational losses for merchants but also pose long-term risks to product and service quality.
* Example 1: Taobao Flash Sales was cited for unilaterally listing merchants' products in campaigns and modifying prices, with rectification efforts deemed superficial. After signing "Market Manager Agency Operation Authorization Agreements," platform managers could alter products, enroll them in activities, and adjust prices without further merchant approval, with merchants bearing all legal consequences. Numerous catering merchants reported being enrolled in promotions like "Hot Item Group" and "Hot Order Red Packets" without consultation and unable to withdraw, leading to financial losses. For instance, a lamb skewer and meat pie combo originally priced at 19.8 yuan yielded the merchant only 2.58 yuan, while tomato egg noodles originally 21 yuan netted just 3.31 yuan. Another merchant received only 1.25 yuan for dumplings normally sold for 18 yuan, failing to cover ingredient costs. Regulatory authorities announced a forthcoming crackdown on agency operations within food delivery platforms. * Example 2: Trip.com was found to automatically match prices, depriving hotels of pricing power. Hotels reported the platform used technology to scrape room rates across all channels and demanded the lowest price on its platform. Non-compliance led to pressure via phone calls, traffic restrictions, or automatic price matching. Regulators have directed Trip.com to remove its "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool.
2. Imposition of Unreasonable Rules Certain platforms leveraged their dominant position to enforce unfair rules, increasing merchant burdens through penalties like fines and traffic throttling.
* Example 3: Trip.com established unreasonable criteria and penalties for "customer poaching." Its rules defined this as hotels directing consumers who booked on Trip.com to transact directly or through other channels. Investigations revealed that even for legitimate actions like consumers extending stays offline or rebooking via other channels for personal reasons, the platform still claimed the transaction was platform-facilitated, demanding full commissions and penalizing hotels. Authorities have instructed Trip.com to revise these rules to exclude online bookings with offline extensions from "poaching" classifications.
3. Engagement in Misleading Practices Platforms employed deceptive advertising to induce consumer purchases, infringing on consumer rights.
* Example 4: Third-party train ticket platforms, including Qunar, promoted paid services like "Ticket Snatching Accelerator" and "Dual Channel" with claims such as "significantly improving success rates" and "priority purchasing," misleadingly packaging the free waitlist service from the official 12306 platform as exclusive premium features. Regulators had previously met with 12 such platforms on January 30, 2026, demanding an end to false advertising. * Example 5: Trip.com's "Thumbs Up" icons displayed next to partner hotels were deemed misleading as they were unrelated to actual service quality. The platform has been directed to remove these identifiers. * Example 6: Gaode continued displaying "Billion Subsidy" promotional labels in its hotel section after the campaign ended, potentially misleading consumers. Gaode has been instructed to rectify this.
4. Deficiencies in Compliance Management Systems Some platforms exhibited weaknesses in their compliance frameworks, with ineffective organizational structures, unclear responsibilities, and non-operational mechanisms.
* Example 7: Qunar was criticized for having an inactive compliance management system, lacking a proper organizational structure and systematic mechanisms, leading to insufficient risk assessment for major promotions and rule changes. * Example 8: JD.com's compliance management was found to be weakened by an outdated organizational structure and vaguely defined key roles, requiring improvements in operational effectiveness. Regulators are providing ongoing guidance through compliance evaluations.
During the meeting, market regulators issued official admonitions, demanding that platforms assume primary responsibility, rectify issues within deadlines, and protect the rights of merchants and consumers. They were explicitly prohibited from forcing or coercing merchants to sell below cost, thereby disrupting market order. Platforms under investigation for suspected violations may face further legal action, with cases involving non-local firms referred to their respective local authorities. The involved platforms acknowledged the issues raised and committed to immediate and comprehensive rectification.
The three regulatory departments pledged to continue their crackdown on "rat-race" competition, publicly disclose future violations, monitor整改 progress, and take action against non-compliant firms. A multi-stakeholder consultation mechanism will be established for platform rule-making and promotions to foster long-term prevention and support the healthy development of the platform economy.