On 13 February China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) summoned seven major platform operators — Alibaba, Douyin, Baidu, Tencent, JD, Meituan and Taobao Flash Sale — to press them to stop aggressive, disorderly promotional practices and to comply strictly with anti‑monopoly, pricing, consumer‑protection and e‑commerce laws.
Regulators told the companies to shoulder “主体责任” (primary responsibility) for the behaviour that occurs on their platforms and to tighten controls on marketing and promotional mechanics. The meeting reiterated compliance with the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law, the Price Law, the Consumer Rights Protection Law and the E‑commerce Law and warned against practices that distort competition or mislead consumers.
The intervention is part of a years‑long campaign by Beijing to impose rules on China’s platform economy. Since the crackdown on monopolistic conduct in 2020, regulators have moved beyond headline antitrust fines to policing everyday commercial practices: fake discounts, loss‑leading price wars, misleading “flash sale” mechanics and promotional arrangements that squeeze merchants and undermine market order.
Officials used the familiar phrase “内卷式竞争” (involution‑style competition) to describe cut‑throat tactics that escalate costs for platforms, merchants and consumers without producing genuine productivity gains. The SAMR’s rebuke signals a desire to halt zero‑sum discount battles that can destabilise supply chains, degrade service quality and concentrate risk in a small number of dominant firms.
For platforms and merchants the practical consequences are immediate. Expect closer scrutiny of promotional rules, clearer obligations on platform gatekeeping, and stricter enforcement during festivals such as 618 and Double 11, when aggressive pricing and opaque subsidy arrangements have been most acute. Smaller merchants may welcome the curbs on platforms’ promotional mechanics, while consumers could see fewer ultra‑deep but potentially artificial discounts.
The move also has a political economy logic. Beijing is balancing industrial innovation with financial and social stability: curbing destabilising commercial behaviour reduces short‑term frenzy while signalling to the market that growth must proceed within regulated bounds. For international investors and foreign businesses, the message is familiar — Chinese tech firms operate in an environment where regulatory oversight can be exercised swiftly and publicly to reshape market incentives.
This is unlikely to mark a one‑off chastening. The SAMR’s concentrated meeting style — bringing top executives into a formal dialogue — is part of China’s toolkit for steering corporate behaviour. Platforms will now have to show both compliance and new governance frameworks for promotions; how they respond will influence consumer prices, merchant margins and the competitive landscape of China’s digital economy.