This year's Double 11, the storm came particularly fierce. The promotion has just begun, and JD and Li Jiaqi's live streaming rooms have been embroiled in a dispute over the "Double 11 Network Lowest Price". Entries such as "JD's procurement and sales shouting to Li Jiaqi" and "Li Jiaqi holding merchants to control prices and inventory" have repeatedly made headlines on hot searches.
On October 24th, according to a report by Cailian News Agency, JD's sales personnel accused Li Jiaqi of demanding the brand to "choose between two" on their social media. The sales personnel claimed that JD had received a lawyer's letter from brand company Haishi, and was sued by the brand for violating the "bottom price agreement" signed with Li Jiaqi due to a certain Haishi oven's JD price being lower than Li Jiaqi's direct broadcast price, and demanded huge liquidated damages.
After the internet fermentation, Li Jiaqi's affiliated company MeiONE responded that Li Jiaqi's live streaming room and Haishi brand did not sign a so-called "bottom price agreement", nor did they require the brand to make any choice.
On the evening of the 24th, Haishi, a baking appliance brand, issued a statement on its official WeChat account, denying the existence of the "bottom price agreement" and claiming that JD's procurement and sales personnel fabricated rumors and trampled on it. The official statement continues to point the conflict directly at JD, stating that the other party violated the contract and modified the price without consulting with the brand. And for the ovens sold at lower prices, each loss will be borne by the Haishi brand, rather than being subsidized by the platform as claimed by JD.com.
So, is "floor price agreement" a monopolistic behavior? Who will control the pricing power of goods? In response, Chao News reporters interviewed several lawyers.
Lawyer Zhu Jieping, founding partner of Taikun Law, a specially invited researcher at the China Association for Policy Science Research, believes that the "bottom price agreement" signed between large businesses with significant influence nationwide is a behavior that restricts competition and synergy, and has the nature of a monopoly agreement. This agreement is prohibited under Article 13 of the Anti Monopoly Law.
In fact, the state has always held a negative attitude towards the signing of "bottom price agreements" between merchants and platforms. Article 18 of the Anti Monopoly Law stipulates that it is prohibited for operators and trading counterparties to enter into monopoly agreements such as "limiting the minimum price for resale of goods to third parties". Article 14 of the Price Law of the People's Republic of China also stipulates that operators shall not collude with each other, manipulate market prices, harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators or consumers, and engage in unfair pricing behaviors.
Zhu Yichong, Senior Partner of Equity at Beijing Yingke (Shenzhen) Law Firm, told Chao News that forcing merchants to "choose between two" violates Chinese laws and regulations. According to Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law, operators shall not abuse their dominant market position and restrict the trading freedom of the counterparty. If e-commerce platforms have a dominant market position and restrict merchants' trading freedom by requiring them to have only one option, then this behavior may constitute a monopolistic behavior that abuses their dominant market position.
Lawyer Zhu Yichong believes that both parties involved in this "floor price dispute" have denied signing a "floor price agreement" because they are both aware that agreeing on an exclusive floor price does not meet consumer expectations and is suspected of violating relevant national laws and regulations.