Recent discussions about "JD's hefty fines on Midea" and "JD's exclusive dealing" have repeatedly trended on short-video and information platforms, drawing widespread attention. Behind these controversies lies an extension of industry price competition triggered by JD's commitment to low-price strategies. Why does a platform dedicated to securing lower prices for consumers face such disputes?
JD's misunderstood low-price strategy essentially functions as a "price protection wall." During the "Double 11" shopping festival, JD's sales continue to rise. The platform requires brands to adjust their prices on JD if they offer lower prices on other channels, ensuring price competitiveness. This approach is seen as JD leveraging its scale advantage to proactively build a "price protection wall," safeguarding consumer interests.
For consumers, purchasing decisions revolve around good products, competitive prices, and reliable services. JD has consistently earned user trust through its credible brand image, competitive pricing, and stable service experience.
Legal expert Xiao Shiguang, director of Beijing Special Dispatch Law Firm, noted that brands like Midea generate significant sales on JD. JD's requirement for price parity ensures competitiveness for high-volume platforms, benefiting the majority of consumers. This proactive price-matching mechanism is fundamentally a consumer protection measure, not an "exclusive dealing" practice. The misuse of the "exclusive dealing" label distorts JD's legitimate pricing strategy and risks fueling negative publicity.
Midea Group has also debunked rumors—claims circulating on social media about a ¥5 million fine for violating JD's "exclusive dealing" policy are false.
Yu Yao, assistant professor at Beijing Jiaotong University's School of Accounting, explained that JD's "price synchronization" mechanism acts as a price discovery and market stabilization tool in platform economies. By reducing price discrepancies across channels, it minimizes information asymmetry, enhances price transparency, and safeguards JD's platform credibility. This mechanism also helps brands optimize omnichannel marketing and inventory management, mitigating profit volatility from price wars and improving supply chain stability.
From a retail industry perspective, platforms promoting price transparency and fair competition through market-driven methods can enhance consumer experiences and foster a healthy market cycle. Balancing consumer protection with merchants' multi-channel operations remains an ongoing challenge for e-commerce platforms.
Industry observers highlight the timing of this controversy—"Double 11," the year's most critical shopping event, is traditionally a peak period for e-commerce competition. Recently, some platforms have amplified unverified negative content about JD, even after clarifications, suggesting non-organic dissemination. Introducing divisive topics like "exclusive dealing" during this period may serve to attract traffic or disrupt competitors.
Such tactics, from orchestrated content releases to abnormal ranking fluctuations, exceed normal business discourse and resemble efforts to manipulate public sentiment. Critics argue that platform mechanisms—especially rankings and recommendations—risk being exploited for commercial gains if unchecked, distorting public judgment and market order.
When platforms simultaneously act as content hubs and marketplaces, they must address the conflict of interest in being both "player and referee." Without checks, overlapping roles may lead to public resource misuse, undermining fair competition and user trust.
As "Double 11" plays a vital role in boosting consumer confidence and market vitality, stakeholders should focus on improving product quality, service, and shopping experiences—not manipulating information for short-term gains. Only in an open, transparent, and fair competitive environment can the digital economy achieve sustainable growth, balancing commercial and social value.