Fined 5.179 Billion Yuan! What Does the Three "Firsts" Set by Ctrip's Monopoly Case Mean?
2026-07-26 07:59:11 Source: Beijing News
According to CCTV News, on the 25th, the State Administration for Market Regulation imposed an administrative penalty on Ctrip Group Co., Ltd. for abusing its dominant market position to implement monopolistic behavior, with fines and confiscations totaling 5.179 billion yuan.
Ctrip was fined 5.179 billion yuan for abusing its dominant market position to implement monopolistic behavior (file photo)
The Ctrip monopoly case is:
- The first anti-monopoly case in China's online travel industry
- The first case of new-type monopolistic behavior in China's platform economy
- The first case in China's platform economy to impose three types of penalties simultaneously
One case sets three "firsts." What does it mean? Let's hear expert analysis.
Shi Jianzhong, Deputy Head of the Expert Advisory Group of the Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Committee of the State Council: Before this case, practices such as exclusive "special cards" or "lowest price across the platform" in the online travel industry were mostly handled at the level of e-commerce law or as contract disputes on a case-by-case basis, and were not formally included in anti-monopoly review. From this case onward, online travel platforms have been explicitly brought within the scope of adjustment of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Business models that use traffic advantages to force merchants to grant exclusive discounts will face comprehensive legality review under the Anti-Monopoly Law.
From the Ctrip monopoly case onward, online travel platforms have been explicitly brought within the scope of adjustment of the Anti-Monopoly Law (screenshot)
Before this case, anti-monopoly cases in China's platform economy mostly focused on restricting transactions, i.e., "choosing one of two." The Ctrip case for the first time independently identified a platform with a dominant position forcing merchants to implement "lowest price across the platform" as an additional unreasonable transaction condition prohibited under Article 22, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. This identification fills the qualitative gap for price-control monopolistic behavior.
Compared with previous anti-monopoly cases in China's platform economy, this case for the first time uses three types of statutory penalties simultaneously.
- First, order to cease the illegal acts. Ctrip was ordered to terminate its "special card" and "gold card" cooperation models, as well as the "lowest price across the platform" clause.
- Second, confiscation of illegal gains. This case is the first time the penalty type of confiscation of illegal gains has been used in anti-monopoly penalties in the platform economy. The fine ratio in this case is significantly higher than in previous cases, reflecting a stricter enforcement attitude.
- At the same time, the administrative penalty also includes a behavioral remediation order, requiring Ctrip to return the order deposits collected from hotels.
Screenshot of Ctrip's relevant search page (file photo)
In recent years, China has continuously strengthened anti-monopoly supervision and enforcement in the platform economy. This case was filed in January 2026 and concluded in July, with the investigation completed and penalty decision made within half a year. This indicates:
- First, anti-monopoly supervision has established a full-chain mechanism of pre-compliance guidance, routine supervision during the process, and post-facto punishment according to law. Anti-monopoly enforcement has become a regular governance tool for the platform economy.
- Second, curbing "involution-style" low-price competition, by negating the legality of "lowest price across the platform," breaking the low-level cycle of competition between platforms and merchants, guiding industry competition from price consumption to service quality improvement and technological innovation.
- Third, the compliance boundaries of algorithms and traffic: platform rules, data use, and algorithm design must all be brought into the legal framework. Ctrip's use of technical tools such as price adjustment assistants to implement illegal acts shows that technical complexity will not become a blind spot for regulation, and the principle of technological neutrality cannot serve as a reason to exempt monopolistic behavior.
- Fourth, balancing the interests of platforms and merchants, restoring merchants' independent pricing rights and cross-platform business freedom, and promoting a sustainable development path for the platform economy from reliance on monopoly rents to efficiency and service-driven growth.
Ctrip Announces Rectification Plan Accepting Social Supervision
After the State Administration for Market Regulation imposed the administrative penalty on Ctrip for abusing its dominant market position to implement monopolistic behavior, Ctrip stated that it fully accepts and firmly complies, and will strictly implement all rectification requirements. It also announced 19 related rectification measures and accepted social supervision.
Editor: Chen Yantao Source: CCTV News
Responsible Editor: Dai Lili_NN4994
