China’s SAMR Releases Eight Typical Cases of Online Unfair Competition in 2025
Published 5 February 2026
Yu Du
On 31 January 2026, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released eight typical cases of online unfair competition, as part of its continued nationwide campaign to regulate online market order and promote the healthy and standardized development of the platform economy.
According to SAMR, in 2025 market regulation authorities at all levels investigated 1,932 cases involving online unfair competition, with total fines and confiscated gains amounting to RMB 71.5294 million. The publication of these representative cases aims to guide business operators toward lawful and compliant operations and jointly foster a fair, transparent, and orderly competitive environment in the digital economy.
Overview of the Eight Typical Cases
Case 1 - Interfering with Platform Operations through Automated Software (Zhongshan, Guangdong)
A technology company developed and sold automation software capable of simulating human actions such as auto-following, liking, commenting, and private messaging on major platforms without authorization. By bypassing platform controls and scraping user data, the software disrupted normal platform operations and content distribution mechanisms. The company was fined RMB 1 million.
Case 2 - Circumventing Platform Review Mechanisms to Manipulate Traffic (Xinxiang, Henan)
A network technology firm sold software that modified video files to evade platform review systems and fraudulently obtain algorithmic traffic recommendations. This conduct interfered with platform governance and undermined fair competition. The company was fined RMB 100,500.
Case 3 - Organizing Fake Transactions for E-commerce Merchants (Xiamen, Fujian)
An online service platform provided paid “brushing orders” services for cross-border e-commerce merchants, including fake purchases, likes, and reviews. Such fabricated transactions misled consumers and distorted market competition. The operator was fined RMB 200,000.
Case 4 - Illegal Data Scraping and Data Porting (Jiujiang, Jiangxi)
A company sold software that bypassed technical safeguards of e-commerce platforms to scrape product images, descriptions, and pricing data in bulk, enabling one-click copying across platforms. This harmed both platforms and legitimate merchants. The company was fined RMB 120,000.
Case 5 - Commercial Defamation via Online Platforms (Chengdu, Sichuan)
A pet breeding company published unsubstantiated allegations against a competing pet store, accusing it of unethical breeding practices and falsified certificates, while promoting its own business. The conduct constituted commercial defamation and resulted in a RMB 150,000 fine.
Case 6 - Malicious Complaints Using Fabricated Evidence (Lianyungang, Jiangsu)
A biotech company orchestrated a scheme involving forged inspection reports and manipulated images to file malicious complaints against competitors on e-commerce platforms. The complaints caused store closures and reputational damage to multiple merchants. The company was fined RMB 200,000.
Case 7 - Commercial Confusion in Broadband Services (Shanghai)
A business operator resold shared broadband connections as independent broadband services within an industrial park, without proper disclosure, leading customers to mistakenly believe they were purchasing higher-quality services. The operator was fined RMB 30,000.
Case 8 - False Promotion through “Influencer Store Visits” (Beijing)
A decoration company organized paid influencer promotions while its physical store was still under renovation, instructing influencers to avoid on-site filming or use materials from other locations. The misleading promotions constituted false advertising, resulting in a RMB 10,000 fine.
Comment
The release of these eight typical cases sends a clear and consistent regulatory signal: the online marketplace is not a law-free zone. The cases cover a wide range of misconduct, from algorithm manipulation, data scraping, and fake transactions to malicious complaints, commercial defamation, and deceptive marketing, reflecting the evolving risks in the digital economy. By publicly disclosing enforcement outcomes and legal reasoning, SAMR strengthens compliance awareness among businesses, and reinforces platform governance responsibilities.
According to SAMR, in 2025 market regulation authorities at all levels investigated 1,932 cases involving online unfair competition, with total fines and confiscated gains amounting to RMB 71.5294 million. The publication of these representative cases aims to guide business operators toward lawful and compliant operations and jointly foster a fair, transparent, and orderly competitive environment in the digital economy.
Overview of the Eight Typical Cases
Case 1 - Interfering with Platform Operations through Automated Software (Zhongshan, Guangdong)
A technology company developed and sold automation software capable of simulating human actions such as auto-following, liking, commenting, and private messaging on major platforms without authorization. By bypassing platform controls and scraping user data, the software disrupted normal platform operations and content distribution mechanisms. The company was fined RMB 1 million.
Case 2 - Circumventing Platform Review Mechanisms to Manipulate Traffic (Xinxiang, Henan)
A network technology firm sold software that modified video files to evade platform review systems and fraudulently obtain algorithmic traffic recommendations. This conduct interfered with platform governance and undermined fair competition. The company was fined RMB 100,500.
Case 3 - Organizing Fake Transactions for E-commerce Merchants (Xiamen, Fujian)
An online service platform provided paid “brushing orders” services for cross-border e-commerce merchants, including fake purchases, likes, and reviews. Such fabricated transactions misled consumers and distorted market competition. The operator was fined RMB 200,000.
Case 4 - Illegal Data Scraping and Data Porting (Jiujiang, Jiangxi)
A company sold software that bypassed technical safeguards of e-commerce platforms to scrape product images, descriptions, and pricing data in bulk, enabling one-click copying across platforms. This harmed both platforms and legitimate merchants. The company was fined RMB 120,000.
Case 5 - Commercial Defamation via Online Platforms (Chengdu, Sichuan)
A pet breeding company published unsubstantiated allegations against a competing pet store, accusing it of unethical breeding practices and falsified certificates, while promoting its own business. The conduct constituted commercial defamation and resulted in a RMB 150,000 fine.
Case 6 - Malicious Complaints Using Fabricated Evidence (Lianyungang, Jiangsu)
A biotech company orchestrated a scheme involving forged inspection reports and manipulated images to file malicious complaints against competitors on e-commerce platforms. The complaints caused store closures and reputational damage to multiple merchants. The company was fined RMB 200,000.
Case 7 - Commercial Confusion in Broadband Services (Shanghai)
A business operator resold shared broadband connections as independent broadband services within an industrial park, without proper disclosure, leading customers to mistakenly believe they were purchasing higher-quality services. The operator was fined RMB 30,000.
Case 8 - False Promotion through “Influencer Store Visits” (Beijing)
A decoration company organized paid influencer promotions while its physical store was still under renovation, instructing influencers to avoid on-site filming or use materials from other locations. The misleading promotions constituted false advertising, resulting in a RMB 10,000 fine.
Comment
The release of these eight typical cases sends a clear and consistent regulatory signal: the online marketplace is not a law-free zone. The cases cover a wide range of misconduct, from algorithm manipulation, data scraping, and fake transactions to malicious complaints, commercial defamation, and deceptive marketing, reflecting the evolving risks in the digital economy. By publicly disclosing enforcement outcomes and legal reasoning, SAMR strengthens compliance awareness among businesses, and reinforces platform governance responsibilities.