A few days ago, Tik Tok said that new users could not log in to Tik Tok normally with the authorization of WeChat, because there was a problem with the login service provided by WeChat open platform, which caused troubles to the common users of Tik Tok and WeChat. According to people close to Tencent, WeChat’s move is "based on platform rules and consideration of protecting users’ privacy".
At the beginning of the new year, Tik Tok released the video social App "Duoshan", and it was soon discovered that the download link was blocked by WeChat on the grounds that "the webpage contains unsafe content".
As of press time, Tencent officials did not respond to this matter. However, on January 26th, WeChat issued a notice on "Handling of Recent Induced Violation and Malicious Confrontation", which explicitly prohibited the testing and induced behavior of external links, and specifically named the offending apps including today’s headlines, Tencent’s Didi Chuxing, JD.COM and so on.
Is it suspected of unfair competition?
On January 23, the relevant person in charge of Tik Tok said in an interview with the media that WeChat has the value of hydropower infrastructure. At present, there are more than 200 million users who use WeChat accounts to log in to Tik Tok alone. Once WeChat is unilaterally banned, it will have a greater impact on users.
Cong Lixian, a professor at the School of Intellectual Property of East China University of Political Science and Law, holds different views on the "infrastructure theory". He told the "Legal Daily" reporter that under normal circumstances, basic telecom service providers are considered as basic network service providers. Facebook and Twitter have a very large market share in the United States and have never been recognized as infrastructure.
Earlier, Zhang Xinnian, a Beijing lawyer, said in an interview with the media that if Tencent unilaterally terminated Tik Tok’s WeChat authorized login, it would be suspected of damaging the normal choice rights of Tik Tok operators and consumers, which could be considered as unfair competition.
Cong Lixian believes that in the market economy, whether it is compatible with other people’s products or services is usually the result of free competition, and deciding whether it is compatible is also a voluntary choice for operators to maximize their interests. Whether incompatible behavior constitutes unfair competition as stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law depends on whether the operator is malicious.
"Based on the protection of personal information and the protection of corporate commercial resources, it is understandable that WeChat carries out necessary management and does not involve malicious incompatibility; Wechat and Tik Tok can still be installed and run on the same device, and they are not compatible. Moreover, in addition to WeChat account, Tik Tok users can also choose to log in to Tik Tok by means of mobile phone number, headline account, etc., not just relying on WeChat account login. " Cong Lixian said that this is a normal enterprise competition, and moral kidnapping should not be used to accuse normal business operations.
Kong Xiangjun, dean of the Institute of Intellectual Property and Competition Law of Shanghai Jiaotong University, said in an interview with the Legal Daily that compatibility is not only the operator’s choice, but also may be based on various reasonable factors such as safety and efficiency. Compatibility and incompatibility are common phenomena on the Internet, and forced compatibility is not only impossible, but also harmful. We should not only adhere to the principle of freedom of competition, but also limit the scope of "malice".
"As far as this incident is concerned, if Tik Tok has a variety of options for users’ access channels, a certain platform operator has no obligation to open up. Whether or not to open the platform is usually the freedom of competition of operators, and the law only restricts the competitive behavior of monopoly operators. Wechat’s termination of authorized login will objectively bring inconvenience to Tik Tok users, but this benefit has not yet risen to the legal level, more like a ‘ Reflective interests ’ That is, if it is good to log in with WeChat account, it will cause some inconvenience if it cannot be used. However, this benefit is the reflective benefit brought by the previous login. The benefits felt by the parties are not real benefits, so it is difficult to claim rights. " Kong Xiangjun said.
Internet industry is cautious about monopoly.
Accusing the monopoly of WeChat is the voice that the headline department has made many times. The relevant person in charge of headlines once pointed out in an interview with the media: "The core lies in the rapid development of headline products, including Tik Tok, which has shaken Tencent’s monopoly position and commercial interests."
So, does WeChat’s behavior constitute a monopoly? Article 3 of the anti-monopoly law stipulates that monopolistic behaviors include: the operators reach a monopoly agreement; Operators abuse market dominance; Concentration of operators that have or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.
Sheng Jiemin, a well-known expert in anti-monopoly law and a professor at Peking University Law School, said in an interview with the reporter of Legal Daily that in fact, the determination of monopoly status is very complicated, and in judicial and law enforcement practice, it is necessary to be very cautious about the determination of "abuse of market dominance" by enterprises.
"Many people think that a large market share has a monopoly position, but it is not. To judge whether an enterprise has or abuses a dominant market position, many factors must be considered." Sheng Jiemin said that the rapid iteration of the Internet industry determines the criteria for judging dynamic competition rather than static scale. In addition, Internet companies are trying their best to expand their own scale, and the boundaries of related markets are far less clear than those of traditional markets. In this case, more attention should be paid to market entry, market behavior of operators, impact on competition and other factors.
Cong Lixian also believes that it is difficult to define the scope of the relevant market, whether the specific parties in the relevant market are involved in market dominance, and whether the relevant parties are abusing market dominance. "In view of this incident, WeChat belongs to social software and Tik Tok belongs to short video application, and they actually do not belong to the same relevant market."
You Yunting, a Shanghai lawyer, told the reporter of Legal Daily that on the issue of monopoly, on the one hand, it depends on whether the operators have a dominant market position, and on the other hand, it depends on whether the consequences of monopolistic behavior have caused subversive changes to the whole competition pattern. "Tencent didn’t block all users in Tik Tok, but just stopped logging in new users’ WeChat accounts, not to mention abusing the dominant market position."
Xue Jun, deputy dean of Peking University Law School, told the Legal Daily reporter: "Being unable to log in with WeChat account normally will objectively affect the user experience of Tik Tok users, but it is unlikely to have a long-term and obvious effect of eliminating and restricting competition. Because even if Tik Tok users can’t log in with WeChat account, they can log in by other means. It is still necessary to go deep into the specific legal relationship involved by the parties, and not just look at some big things, otherwise it may be biased. "
"This incident is not entirely a bad thing for Tik Tok. In a sense, it is also an opportunity to test the stickiness of Tik Tok users. Enterprises must have a sense of management and cannot pin their business models on the cooperation of others. " Xue Jun said.
Information security attracts netizens’ attention
Although Tik Tok has repeatedly denied "acquiring the WeChat relationship chain" in this storm, the discussion on the relationship chain has not stopped.
Weibo user "Nutritionist-Guo Lin" said, "My Tik Tok has not been bound to WeChat. Today, I downloaded Duoshan, logged in with Tik Tok, and saw that many friends recommended are WeChat friends … … I feel that Tik Tok is very unsafe. ".
On January 25th, Zhou Tian Finance reported that the code screenshots obtained from the industry showed that today’s headline adjusted the Cookie of WeChat browser and sent it back to today’s headline server. It is speculated that the headline is likely to obtain the WeChat friend relationship chain in this way. According to the screenshot, the headline extends the life cycle of Cookie in WeChat browser to 10 years, while in the industry, such cycle is usually about a few days.
Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, believes that in the era of big data, respecting users’ right to choose and privacy is an eternal theme. Taking the case of using Sina Weibo user information illegally by Pulse as an example, the court held that protecting user information was an important basis to measure the legitimacy of the operator’s behavior, and finally decided that Pulse constituted unfair competition.
Zhu Wei said that enterprises should give priority to personal information security and privacy protection from the perspective of users. Secondly, under the framework of laws and regulations, reasonable and proper use of data can bring better product experience to users.
You Yunting added that in addition to the platform side, users should also raise their awareness of self-protection. They should try to install products from big companies and not install apps from unknown sources. Permissions related to their privacy must be thoroughly understood before choosing whether to agree or disagree, and synchronization functions must not be abused. Reduce the possibility of personal information disclosure through good use. (Reporter Han Dandong Luo Congran)
