China: Burden Of Proof In Abuse Of Market Dominance Litigation

Last Updated: 4 August 2014
Article by Guanbin Xie and Yi Jin

The Anti-monopoly Law of China governs three types of monopoly activities, monopoly agreements, abuse of market dominance position ("AMDP"), and operator consolidation that has or may have effects of eliminating or restricting competition, whereas the first two types involve more civil suits and damages.

According to the statistics of the Supreme Court of China, since the Anti-monopoly Law came into force in 2008, the nationwide courts have received 116 first-instance anti-monopoly civil suits by the end of 2012, including Zhe Zhou v. China Mobile, Fangping Li v. China Unicom, Sursen v. Shanda, Renren v. Baidu, Ruibang v. Johnson & Johnson, and Qihoo v. Tencent that caused wide public concern. Among them, except Ruibang v. Johnson & Johnson that arose from a vertical monopoly agreement dispute, the other five all came from disputes of abusing market dominance position, wherein Zhe Zhou v. China Mobile closed because the plaintiff withdrew his complaint after reaching a settlement with the defendant, China Mobile, but the other four ended by loss of the plaintiffs1 for the reason that they failed to prove the defendants' market dominance in relevant markets.2 In the following table, we list rulings of the courts regarding the four suits, Renren v. Baidu, Sursen v. Shanda, Fangping Li v. China Unicom, and Qihoo v. Tencent.


Relevant Market & Evidence of Plaintiff

Arguments & Evidence of Defendant

Ruling of the Court

Renren v. Baidu

1. Plaintiff Renren alleged that the relevant market was the search engine market in China;

2. Main evidence of the plaintiff came from media reports, such as an article entitled "Baidu occupies about 2/3 Chinese search market"

Defendant Baidu argued that since its search engine services were free of charge, and free service was not governed by the Anti-monopoly Law of China, in this case there was no relevant market in the sense of anti-monopoly regulation.

The court found that the relevant market in this case was the search engine market in China, but the plaintiff was unable to determine whether the relevant market on which the plaintiff's "market share" argument was based had the same scope as what was found here, thus the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had a dominant market position in the relevant market.

Sursen v. Shanda

1. The plaintiff Sursen alleged that the relevant market was the internet literature reading market in China;

2. The main evidence of the plaintiff was several articles posted on the websites of Qidian, Shanda and Xihua Net, saying that, and ran by the two defendants occupied more than 80% internet literature market in China, and more than 95% the internet original literature market.

Defendants denied the dominant market position allegation by borrowing the introductions of the plaintiff and other literature websites, which said that they enjoyed dominance or occupied major markets in the field of internet literature.

The court did not decide the relevant market in this case. However, it found that the evidence provided by the plaintiff was but advertising materials on each website, without being verified or proved by other evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to prove that the alleged market shares were equivalent to the factual ones. Moreover, of the plaintiff, having similar business to the defendants', also presented itself as a globally largest e-book website. Therefore, the court did not hold that the two defendants had a dominant position in the internet literature market in China.

Fangping Li v. China Unicom

1. The plaintiff Fangping Li alleged that the relevant market was the landline telephone, personal access system and ADSL market in Beijing;

2. The plaintiff's main evidence was articles entitled Going Public of Netcom*, and Landline Clients of China Netcom increase 155% and Stop Loss by Earning 9.2B.

* Now part of China Unicom

The defendant China Unicom argued that the relevant market should be the voice communication market only, and provided relevant economic analysis reports to the court.

The court did not clearly define the relevant market, but held that the landline telephone, personal access system and mobile phone could easily replace one another, so did the ADSL and WIFI internet connection. Therefore, the relevant market alleged by the plaintiff was too narrow.

Qihoo v. Tencent

1. The plaintiff Qihoo held that the relevant market was the instant messaging software and service market at the computer end that integrated words, voice and video, and the relevant region was the Mainland China;

2. The Plaintiff's main evidence was the Offering Prospectus in Chinese of the defendant for issuing stocks in Hong Kong, media reports, and reports of iResearch Consulting Group, CNNIC and an economic analysis institute.

The defendant Tencent argued that the actual relevant market was far larger than that alleged by the plaintiff, which should be the global market. Defendant's main evidence was the articles on internet which were used to prove the hard competition in the instant messaging market.

The court did not clearly define the relevant market in this case, but held that instant messaging products had a close replaceablility with Microblog (Weibo) and social networking sites (SNS), which together formed the relevant market. Thus, the plaintiff argued a too narrow market. The court concluded that the relevant market should be global, so the defendant did not have a dominant position.

A major factor for plaintiffs' small chances of winning AMDP suits is their heavy burden of proof. Article 8 of Provisions of Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Relating to the Application of Laws in Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolies ("Supreme Court Provisions"), which was effective on June 1, 2012, states as below:

In case that the accused monopoly activity falls into the scope regulated by Article 17.1 of the Anti-monopoly Law, the plaintiff shall produce evidence proving that the defendant has a dominance position in the relevant market and that the defendant abuses his market dominance position.

This requires the plaintiff to prove in three aspects: (1) definition of the relevant market; (2) market dominance position of the defendant; and (3) abuses of market dominance by the defendant. In light of such law suits and decisions held by courts in recent years, it is very challenging for the plaintiffs to prove the first two aspects.

The plaintiffs' difficulties in proving their allegation in AMDP suits will weaken willingness of consumers or operators whose rights are infringed by abusing activities to claim judicial relief under the Anti-monopoly Law. Nevertheless the Supreme Court Provisions does not yet relax the plaintiffs from the heavy burden of proof. In addressing this problem, we think it is necessary to continue to explore the issue in similar future cases, and, on the other hand, it is also possible that the burden of proof is reasonably allocated between the plaintiff and defendant within the existing legal frame set by relevant laws and judicial interpretations.

A complete concept of burden of proof shall consist of the subjective and objective prongs.3 The subjective prong means the liability of a party to produce evidence to the court in order to avoid his failure in the suit, and the objective prong means the negative consequence that a party has to accept if the facts are not clarified.4 It is generally believed that the subjective prong is relatively dynamic since it often shifts between the plaintiff and defendant while they defend or offend the other party. The objective prong is relatively still. If the facts remain unclear, but both parties have exhausted their subjective burden, the party having the burden to prove will have to face the adverse result because he fails to help the court clarify the facts. In line with these two prongs, we will try to analyze a reasonable allocation of burden of proof in an AMDP suit in the following.

I. Judges shall take advantage of their right to interpretation, exhausting both parties' subjective burden of proof.

Generally speaking, the defendant of an AMDP suit has a superior position in markets. Thus, the plaintiff is in a disadvantageous position regarding evidence collection, "distance of evidence", and providing evidence to define the relevant market and the defendants' market share and predominance. The existing laws and judicial interpretations do not yet shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in the AMDP suit. However, the burden of proof shall be reasonably allocated to improve a reproduction of the disputable facts, not to set a barrier from finding them.5 It requires the judge to use his/her power to interpretation, encouraging and directing the defendant and plaintiff to prove the facts to their best efforts. For instance of defining the relevant market, it is the plaintiff who shall firstly clarify his allegations, and provide evidence to prove the scope of the relevant market, at least clarifying and defining the relevant market as he alleges. In the meantime, the judge shall play an active role to interpret the meaning of the relevant market and guide the plaintiff to prove his allegation. Secondly, after the plaintiff provides his evidence, the subjective burden of proof shift to the defendant in case that the plaintiff has evidenced the large market share of the defendant in any possible definition of the relevant market. In order to rebut the plaintiff, the defendant shall prove his definition of the relevant market and his market share under his definition. If the defendant does not do so, the judge can take into account the plaintiff's allegations, evidence and description as well as common sense to define the relevant mark.

II. The risk to lose shall be allocated cautiously according to the objective burden of proof.

The objective facts cannot be completely reproduced by proving the legal facts, on the basis of which the judge makes a decision. The real facts must be disclosed in the course of evidence production and interrogation. Even though the laws do not support him to discretionally allocate the statutory burden of proof, the judge shall try to find out the objective facts within the existing legal frame, not to make a curt decision unfavorable to the plaintiff who fails to produce the required evidence in an AMDP suit, because of the said "distance of evidence" and inherent limitations of the plaintiffs in evidence production.However, only in a suit that has questionable subjective facts even after the two parties produce and interrogate evidence can the judge apply the allocation of burden of proof to make a decision.6 That is, the court makes a decision unfavorable to the plaintiff for his failure in evidence production only in the condition that the judge has made an adequate interpretation,that both parties have exhausted their subjective burden of proof, and that the court has exhausted means of discretional investigation, but the objective facts are still unclear. Lastly, for those important and complicated anti-monopoly cases, the court can consult the regulatory administrations, the industry associations or experts in order to determine the appropriate scope of the relevant market. In addition, such shift of burden of proof can be applied to prove the defendant's dominance market position.7

III. The expert witness system has much room to improve.

The AMDP suit requires comprehensive understanding of the industries in issue and quantitative analysis in economics for determining the relevant market and analyzing the competition. In light of the challenges for most parties to fulfill the evidence requirements, the Supreme Court Provisions introduces the expert witness system in Article 12, which reads:

The Parties can apply for one or two specialists having the required expertise to appear before the court and explain technical questions in issue.

In practice, however, the expert witness system still needs further perfection. First of all, it is rather difficult for the parties to identify eligible experts as witnesses whose background knowledge and qualifications meet the rather high standard as discussed above. It is becoming necessary to establish an expert tank classified by their profession and expertise. Upon the parties' request, the court can assist them to retain one or two experts. Secondly, it always costs a lot to retain expert witness. If he is a consumer, the plaintiff may be barred by this cost from claiming his rights via a court action. So we think it is also necessary to study a rationale assignment of expert witness cost, so that more experts can appear in courts, and the system will play its roles better in AMDP suits.


1 In Qihoo v. Tencent, Qihoo lost in the first-instance before the High Court of Guangdong Province, and appealed before the Supreme Court, waiting for the final decision.

2 In Fangping Li v. China Unicom, defendant China Unicom argued that the relevant market was voice telecommunication market and filed relevant evidence.

3 Yuntao Shan, Issues on Burden of Proof in Civil Suits, Politics and Laws Tribunal, 1992 (2): 59.

4 Haihong Huo, Burden of Proof, a "Functional" Analysis,Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law, 2003 (5): 65-66.

5 Hao Li, Study on Civil Burden of Proof (M) Legal Press, Beijing, 2003:149.

6 Chunhua Cheng, Allocation, Reversion and Shift of Burden to Prove—in Civil Litigations (J), Modern Laws, 2008 (2).

7 Gang Feng, Preliminary Discussion on Burden of Proof in Civil Anti-Monopoly Law Suits,

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.