2020年初，中国11年来第一次公布了针对《反垄断法》的修订草案，其中提及未来将对互联网企业市场支配地位进行反垄断认定。在美国和欧洲，针对互联网行业的反垄断调查也是热议话题，执法活动方兴未艾。这一趋势背后的原因是什么？它将为反垄断律师带来哪些机遇？
发生了什么？
2020年伊始，中国反垄断执法机构发布了《反垄断法》修订草案，向社会公众公开征求意见。其中第21条首次提出明确针对互联网产业的市场支配地位认定问题做了规定。
近期，根据路透社报道，市场上出现了中国执法者将首先针对部分互联网支付业务展开反垄断调查的消息。
无独有偶，7月29日，美国四大科技巨头（亚马逊、苹果、谷歌、Facebook）的CEO以远程方式接受了美国国会长达五个半小时的听证审查，时隔20年后，美国也向互联网企业再次举起了反垄断“大刀”。
一时间，国内外针对互联网产业的反垄断调查都有了种“山雨欲来风满楼”的意味。
然而环球律师事务所合伙人万江律师告诉ALB，当下“山雨欲来”的状况背后其实涉及诸多复杂因素，甚至有偶然性的叠加，应谨慎将它们联系在一起进行过度解读。
时代在召唤
万律师继而对背后因素进行了逐一分析。
首先，在他看来，此轮中国对《反垄断法》的修订存在更深远的背景。“中国的《反垄断法》已经颁布十余年。在欧洲、美国甚至一些新兴市场国家和地区，《反垄断法》基本每隔五、六年，甚至一、两年就会修订一次，因为这部法律和社会经济结合得太紧密了，这样的修订是必须的。”
就在本月，国务院反垄断委员会正式发布了4部反垄断指南，而这些指南其实早在2012年就进入筹划并开始起草工作。“中国在不断完善反垄断规范的过程中，对于新经济现象以及新产业的发展必然会做出回应。”万律师说。
其次，当下状况也反映了中国政府对于互联网产业态度的变化。
“过去几年，中国对互联网新业态普遍持鼓励支持态度，倾向于审慎监管。然而从2019年开始，根据我们这些行业人士观察，中国政府展现出对网络经济加强监管的态度。”万律师说。
他继而指出，这些监管主要体现在两方面：一是不断设立新规范；二是“态度上的转变……甚至在一些具体问题上明确提出了倾向性意见，认为互联网平台的垄断性可能会对消费者造成较大冲击和压制”。
这样的变化也得到了海外市场的回应。
“实际上，随着以互联网为载体的新经济业态迈入成熟阶段，在过去几年，欧美各国一直在讨论如何在新经济业态下调整和塑造竞争监管政策。”万律师说，“包括近期美国国会针对四大互联网公司举行的以垄断和竞争为主题的听证会，表明他们在做政策和规范储备的同时，已经着手对互联网行业采取必要的监管措施了。”
万律师还补充说，虽然很少见到中国的大型互联网企业公开参与相关讨论，但相信他们已经着手对未来可能的反垄断审查进行政策研究、理论储备和应对准备。
“我认为，反垄断监管未来会成为针对互联网产业中经济行为的主要监管手段之一。”他说。
“大刀”已落下？
虽然多国政府已进行了多手准备，但万律师指出，在实践层面，“尽管看起来狼烟四起，政府部门对这个问题的处理仍然非常谨慎”。
和化工、海运、汽车、药品等反垄断重点监管的传统行业相比，反垄断监管体系目前对于互联网产业的介入非常有限，在万律师看来，这和互联网产业本身的特性息息相关。
“互联网业态今天仍然在变化。其最大特性之一是‘破坏性创新（disruptive innovation）’，即昔日互联网独角兽的市场优势（market power）可能会在很短时间内被某个从零做起的小企业基于新技术或创新商业模式颠覆掉。”他说。
“因此接受反垄断调查的互联网主体可能会提出这样的抗辩：以传统的反垄断框架看，我可能具有主宰性的市场力量，但这种状况也许很快会被颠覆掉。”
对于互联网产业展开反垄断监管的第二个棘手之处，则是“目前对于新经济产业，我们对其商业模式的诞生、成型、运转过程等并不完全清楚”。
例如近年德国联邦卡特尔局针对Facebook的数据垄断行为开展反垄断调查，并决定禁止其任意收集用户数据的行为，该决定获得了德国联邦最高法院的支持，但“Facebook从始至终最主要的抗辩理由，就是它的商业模式需要其做出这类行为，而这项抗辩在杜塞尔多夫高等法院的初审中说服过法官”。
“这些特性使得政府部门针对互联网企业的监管多少还有些拿捏不准。”万律师说。
以中国为例，万律师指出，中国的司法机构已经受理了不少关于互联网垄断的案件，但“绝大多数并不是以垄断，而是以不正当竞争为案由提起诉讼的；即便是以垄断为由的起诉，基本上也很难成立”。
外国政府机构的态度同样审慎。
“例如美国，目前做的只是一个国会听证，而联邦贸易委员会或司法部开展的调查还是有限的……到现在为止，全世界范围内真正比较成规模的执法案件只有从德国联邦卡特尔局开始，随后扩展至欧盟及其成员国、部分亚洲国家反垄断执法机构开展的针对在线旅游平台的反垄断调查，但目前看也只有德国联邦卡特尔局做出了明确的反对处理。”万律师指出。
最后，针对互联网企业不仅尚无成体系的事后反垄断监管，甚至事前监管也是不足的。
“特别在中国，互联网领域的企业整合很少进行经营者集中申报。没有经历反垄断机构的事先审查，针对互联网行业的竞争评估是缺位的，企业也无法知晓相关业务运营是否可能构成排除、限制竞争。等于说，大家的风险敞口都摆在这里”。
律师的新“蓝海”
尽管当下实践尚少，但万律师认为，未来反垄断监管一定会形成针对传统行业和新经济业态二分天下的局面。
“对于反垄断律师，这将是个蓝海。”他说，“但新经济业态相当复杂，它需要反垄断律师真正沉积到行业里去，才可能对这个领域的问题给出回应。”
万律师认为，当下最重要的“是由互联网企业、反垄断律师、反垄断经济学家、政府机构执法官员和裁判法官等，共同商讨构建一个新经济业态下的竞争监管政策框架”。
“互联网企业的参与尤为重要，因为他们拥有大量行业数据、商业模型和技术基础，需要把这些东西贡献出来。”
实际上，中国以外，美国和欧洲也在积极促进此种新共识的达成。“谁能够优先构建出更优越的竞争政策和反垄断制度框架，谁就能够在未来的新经济业态发展和国际竞争中占领先机。”万律师说。
他指出，过去一年，中国发布了三个行政规章及四部指南，在一定程度上已经对互联网行业做出了审慎而客观的回应，“是非常正确的方向……具体到个案，执法人员和法官应该和业内人士做好沟通，不断尝试在各个新领域里寻找标准”。
“当企业找到底线，政府找到红线，新的制度框架就基本成型了。”万律师说。
As antitrust scrutiny tightens globally, Chinese law firms see ‘blue ocean’ for legal work
At the beginning of 2020, China published a new draft of its Antitrust Law, which stipulates tighter scrutiny of Internet companies. At the same time, the U.S. is also conducting antitrust investigations into technology firms. Lawyers feel that legal work related to antitrust could really take in China as a result of this.
At the beginning of 2020, China’s antitrust agency has published a new draft of China’s eleven-year-old Anti-Monopoly Law, with Article 21 for the first time stipulating future antitrust investigations into “Internet companies’ market dominance positions.”
The new draft was echoed by a recent news report from Reuters, which said that Chinese regulators were eyeing certain online payment businesses to launch their initial antitrust probes.
Wan Jiang, partner at Global Law Office, tells ALB that China’s updated law reflects trends prevalent internationally. “The current Anti-Monopoly Law was launched more than a decade ago. However, in Europe, the U.S. and even some emerging markets, antitrust laws are usually revised every five to six, or even one to two years, due to their close reflections of the broader economy landscapes,” he says.
This month, China’s antitrust committee published four guidelines, all of which have been planned and drafted since 2012. “China is gradually completing its antitrust regulations and system, in which process would definitely respond to the development of new economy and novel industries,” says Wan.
Again, the new law also echoes China’s changing attitude towards the Internet industry.
“In the past few years, the government was relatively supportive of the new economy and was cautious on regulatory issues. However, according to our observations, China has tightened its regulatory attitude since 2019,” Wan says.
This is reflected in two ways: On one hand, new laws and regulations aimed at the Internet industry keep emerging; on the other, “there is targeting of specific issues, for example the dominant positions of certain online platforms might impact and hurt customers.”
This is also echoed by some overseas markets. In July, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Facebook had to attend a hearing before Congress, at which CEOs took turns to defend their businesses against possible antitrust accusations.
“With the Internet-based new economy stepping into a mature stage, in the past few years, overseas markets like Europe and the U.S. have been having heated discussions on how to adjust and shape the competition regulatory policies toward the new economy,” Wan says.
“The current antitrust hearing against the four companies shows that the U.S. government has begun to take real actions on basis on policy preparations,” he adds.
At the same time, although it’s still rare to see Chinese Internet companies participating in related discussions publicly, Wan believes many have begun research and preparations for future antitrust probes.
“We have every reason to believe that antitrust regulation will be one of the most important regulations toward the Internet companies in the future,” Wan says.
DYNAMIC INDUSTRY
One of the hardest challenges regulators face is that the technology industry is constantly changing. “Internet companies are known for their ‘disruptive innovation,’ which means that the dominant market position of one unicorn can be easily turned overturned some small business starting from scratch,” Wan says. “This might be a defence of tech company being probed. It might say: Yes, I’m dominant now in the eyes of the traditional regulatory system, but it wouldn’t last long.”
Again regulators are rarely fully aware of the development, operating framework or business models of tech companies”, which can make it very tricky conduct antitrust probes.
For example, Germany’s Bundeskartellamt has conducted investigations into Facebook’s data collection in recent years, and “one of Facebook’s major defences was that this behaviour was essential to its business model, and it was approved by judges in initial trials.”
Meanwhile in China, although courts have accepted a number of antitrust cases against Internet companies, “they tend to be initiated by other companies, and not by regulators,” Wan says.
Foreign regulators have shown the same cautious attitude. “For example, in the U.S., they only conducted a congressional hearing, not official investigations by the FTC or the DOJ. By far, the only clear case in the West has been conducted by the German Bundeskartellamt against online travel agencies,” he says.
China also rarely scans merger applications for potential antitrust violations, and “this further exposes tech companies under such risks,” Wan says.
‘BLUE OCEAN’ FOR LAWYERS
Although they have been rare so far, Wan believes that antitrust probe could become a regular occurrence in just a few years.
“It will be a new blue ocean market for antitrust lawyers. But lawyers need to be real industry experts in order to provide answers,” Wan points out.
In his eyes, the number one priority right now, is to “bring together tech companies, antitrust lawyers and scholars, regulators and judges to discuss and try to establish a new regulatory system for the new economy.”
“And the key participant should be the tech companies, which possess huge amounts of data and information about their business models. They should be ready to share their perspective.”
In fact, apart from China, Europe and the U.S. are also promoting the formation of such new systems. “Whoever becomes the first one to succeed will lead on the development of the Internet industry in the future,” Wan says.
He points out that in 2019, China launched three administrative regulations and four antitrust guidelines partly providing answers in this area. “This is a very good direction. We hope to see more discussions between tech companies and regulators in subdivided areas concerning specific cases,” says Wan. “When companies find their bottom line and the government finds its red line, then we’ll see the birth of a new system,” Wan says.
To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.
