Okk-To The Moon - Tiger Brokers Online Investing Community

1
Comment
Favorite

Okk

Trip.com Faces Antitrust Probe for Forcing "Pick One" and Seizing Pricing Power from Merchants

The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints....

Trip.com Faces Antitrust Probe for Forcing "Pick One" and Seizing Pricing Power from Merchants

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment

Top
Latest

No comments yet

Most Discussed

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":523262269613568,"tweetId":"523262269613568","gmtCreate":1768784742647,"gmtModify":1768784746142,"author":{"id":3557814871166009,"idStr":"3557814871166009","authorId":3557814871166009,"authorIdStr":"3557814871166009","name":"闪电侠08","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f6450511f68919f0aaec67826ad592dd","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":37,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Okk</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Okk</body></html>","text":"Okk","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/523262269613568","repostId":1197396133,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1197396133","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Global Stock Market Deep Analysis","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Deep News","id":"1039043262","head_image":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8296859682db4b478146245e72de1922"},"pubTimestamp":1768548706,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1197396133?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2026-01-16 15:31","market":"sh","language":"en","title":"Trip.com Faces Antitrust Probe for Forcing \"Pick One\" and Seizing Pricing Power from Merchants","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197396133","media":"Deep News","summary":"The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints....","content":"The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn January 14, according to a message posted on the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation, the regulator, based on preliminary verifications and in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, has opened an investigation into Trip.com Group Limited for suspected abuse of its dominant market position to engage in monopolistic practices.\nThis立案调查 by the State Administration for Market Regulation did not come out of the blue; it was conducted based on prior inspections and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. The investigation primarily focuses on Trip.com Group's business conduct within its hotel operations, especially suspected abuses of its market dominance. As a leading enterprise in the online travel industry, Trip.com Group holds a significant market share in both hotel bookings and flight ticket agency services.\nPreviously, according to media reports, a large number of merchants have accused platforms like Trip.com of controlling them with unreasonable terms.\n\"We truly feel like we are working for the platform now; our pricing power has been completely taken away,\" said Zhong Yang, manager of a branded hotel near Wutai Mountain in Shanxi. After discovering the issue, Zhong Yang filed complaints. While Meituan would often revert the changes or compensate for price differences, Trip.com, despite sometimes offering immediate compensation, would later penalize him for breach of contract. His appeal remained unresolved for three months.\nWhat infuriates merchants even more is the extreme difficulty in deactivating the \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function. Dai Yun, a homestay owner in Zhejiang, revealed that the bottom-line prices they set are frequently breached. Lower prices hurt profits, while higher prices deter customers, leaving them in a dilemma. The manager of a budget hotel in Haikou stated that she had to apply to close the function over ten times repeatedly, stuck in a cycle of \"application-rejection-reapplication-rejection.\" Even upon successful deactivation, the account manager would often reactivate the function the very next day.\nWan Jue, a special researcher at the E-Commerce Research Center of Wangjing She and a registered foreign lawyer at Hong Kong's Ling Yong Shan Law Firm, stated that if Trip.com uses its market dominance to force price adjustments, it could constitute an \"abuse of market dominance\" under the Anti-Monopoly Law.\nTrip.com's \"pick one\" or de facto exclusive cooperation clauses are also a focal point of the investigation. Merchants with Trip.com's \"Special Badge\" might be required not to list on competing platforms (like Meituan), while commission rates remain high. In December 2025, the Yunnan Provincial Tourism Homestay Association announced it would initiate anti-monopoly rights protection work against unfair competition by OTAs, explicitly pointing out complaints about Trip.com enforcing \"pick one\"霸王条款, among other issues.\nThe announcement mentioned that in recent years, the association has received numerous complaints from members, reporting that OTA platforms like Trip.com exploit their market dominance to enforce \"pick one\" policies, unilaterally raise commissions, set unfair trading conditions, and throttle traffic. These actions severely infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of operators and undermine fair market competition秩序.\nThe Huangshan Huizhou Homestay Association has also mobilized its member units to collect and organize evidence of online travel platform companies suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. These complaints suggest that Trip.com's market dominance may be used to restrict merchants from choosing other platforms, thereby further consolidating its monopoly position.\nAccording to estimates by Bocom International, in 2024, Trip.com accounted for 56% of the Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) in the hotel and travel market, with Tongcheng Travel holding second place at 13%. Combined, these two platforms occupy nearly 70% of the domestic OTA market share.\nThis \"one dominant player\" structure did not emerge from fair competition but was built through capital mergers and acquisitions and rule-based hegemony. Currently, Trip.com's business covers over 1.2 million international hotels in more than 200 countries and regions, as well as 750,000 hotel resources in over 600 domestic cities. Small and medium-sized homestay operators find it nearly impossible to secure a stable stream of guests without relying on the Trip.com platform.\nFurthermore, according to a report by Southern Metropolis Daily, the explicit base commission rate standard for individual OTA platforms like Trip.com is approximately 10% to 15%. However, to obtain better visibility and exposure on these major OTA platforms—such as achieving a higher ranking (e.g., top three pages or homepage) during specific periods like holidays, or purchasing internal advertising slots—merchants often need to pay additional隐性费用.\nWhen these hidden costs are added up, the total commission expenditure can approach 40%, effectively doubling the explicit commission rate. Yet, merchants feel compelled to pay these extra fees to the platform to enhance their exposure.\nDespite many hotel merchants facing declining profits, Trip.com's performance has continued to improve over the past two years. In 2024, Trip.com achieved a net profit of 17.2 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 72%, with 40% of its revenue coming from hotel booking services. However, merchants generally report that, under the algorithmic control of platforms like Trip.com, their profit situation is far from optimistic.\nThe State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn August 5, the Guizhou Provincial Market Supervision Administration collectively interviewed five platforms, including Trip.com, Tongcheng Travel, Meituan, and Fliggy, directly addressing potential issues like \"pick one\" policies, using technical means to interfere with merchant pricing, price fraud, and abuse of market dominance. The authorities demanded that the platforms conduct immediate self-inspections and corrections.\nOn September 17, the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration, in accordance with the law, conducted an administrative interview with the operating entity of Ctrip (Trip.com's Chinese brand), focusing on issues such as Trip.com forcibly modifying hotel prices through its \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function and obstructing its cancellation. The administration issued a \"Rectification Order.\" The investigation concluded that Trip.com had violated the E-Commerce Law and the Interim Provisions on Regulating Online Unfair Competition, finding issues of using \"service agreements, transaction rules, and technical means\" to impose unreasonable restrictions on transactions and transaction prices of merchants on the platform.\nOn the Black Cat Complaint platform, the total number of complaints containing the keyword \"Ctrip\" (Trip.com) reached 160,303. From December last year to January this year alone, there were over 3,600 complaints. The complaints involve issues such as obstacles to refunds for flights and hotels, platform price adjustments, disputes over compensation for price differences, bundled consumption, false advertising, and loan disputes. Regarding Trip.com's travel services, the platform has received a cumulative total of 119,321 consumer complaints, with 2,386 complaints filed in the last 30 days. For Trip.com's financial services, the total number of complaints is 22,870, with 1,273 complaints in the recent 30 days.\nOn January 14, Trip.com Group responded to the event, stating that it would actively cooperate with the regulatory investigation and fully implement the regulatory requirements. This case marks the first formal antitrust investigation launched by the State Administration for Market Regulation against a major platform enterprise since the \"pick one\" cases involving Alibaba and Meituan in 2021 and the case against CNKI for abusing its market dominance at the end of 2022.\nThe background of this立案调查 is the state's systematic effort to curb \"involution-style\" competition. In December 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation explicitly stated that 2026 would see \"strengthened anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement, with in-depth rectification of 'involution-style' competition.\" Officially defined, \"involution-style competition\" refers to low-price, low-quality, low-level competition that not only disrupts the market but also erodes the long-term competitiveness of enterprises.\nThe new Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, introduced in 2025, has brought typical \"involution-style\" behaviors, such as platforms forcing merchants to sell below cost or abusing rules for false transactions, under regulatory scope. In September 2025, the General Office of the State Council issued a notice explicitly requiring online travel platforms not to infringe upon tourist rights through practices like \"big data price discrimination,\" false advertising, or bundled sales, and to promote healthy competition among platforms while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of merchants operating on them.\nIf Trip.com is found to have abused its dominant market position, it could face administrative fines, confiscation of illegal gains, and other penalties. According to Article 57 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, if an operator abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency shall order it to cease the illegal activities, confiscate the illegal gains, and impose a fine of between 1% and 10% of its sales revenue from the previous year.","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Trip.com Faces Antitrust Probe for Forcing \"Pick One\" and Seizing Pricing Power from Merchants</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nTrip.com Faces Antitrust Probe for Forcing \"Pick One\" and Seizing Pricing Power from Merchants\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1039043262\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8296859682db4b478146245e72de1922);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\nDeep News \n2026-01-16 15:31\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\nThe State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn January 14, according to a message posted on the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation, the regulator, based on preliminary verifications and in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, has opened an investigation into Trip.com Group Limited for suspected abuse of its dominant market position to engage in monopolistic practices.\nThis立案调查 by the State Administration for Market Regulation did not come out of the blue; it was conducted based on prior inspections and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. The investigation primarily focuses on Trip.com Group's business conduct within its hotel operations, especially suspected abuses of its market dominance. As a leading enterprise in the online travel industry, Trip.com Group holds a significant market share in both hotel bookings and flight ticket agency services.\nPreviously, according to media reports, a large number of merchants have accused platforms like Trip.com of controlling them with unreasonable terms.\n\"We truly feel like we are working for the platform now; our pricing power has been completely taken away,\" said Zhong Yang, manager of a branded hotel near Wutai Mountain in Shanxi. After discovering the issue, Zhong Yang filed complaints. While Meituan would often revert the changes or compensate for price differences, Trip.com, despite sometimes offering immediate compensation, would later penalize him for breach of contract. His appeal remained unresolved for three months.\nWhat infuriates merchants even more is the extreme difficulty in deactivating the \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function. Dai Yun, a homestay owner in Zhejiang, revealed that the bottom-line prices they set are frequently breached. Lower prices hurt profits, while higher prices deter customers, leaving them in a dilemma. The manager of a budget hotel in Haikou stated that she had to apply to close the function over ten times repeatedly, stuck in a cycle of \"application-rejection-reapplication-rejection.\" Even upon successful deactivation, the account manager would often reactivate the function the very next day.\nWan Jue, a special researcher at the E-Commerce Research Center of Wangjing She and a registered foreign lawyer at Hong Kong's Ling Yong Shan Law Firm, stated that if Trip.com uses its market dominance to force price adjustments, it could constitute an \"abuse of market dominance\" under the Anti-Monopoly Law.\nTrip.com's \"pick one\" or de facto exclusive cooperation clauses are also a focal point of the investigation. Merchants with Trip.com's \"Special Badge\" might be required not to list on competing platforms (like Meituan), while commission rates remain high. In December 2025, the Yunnan Provincial Tourism Homestay Association announced it would initiate anti-monopoly rights protection work against unfair competition by OTAs, explicitly pointing out complaints about Trip.com enforcing \"pick one\"霸王条款, among other issues.\nThe announcement mentioned that in recent years, the association has received numerous complaints from members, reporting that OTA platforms like Trip.com exploit their market dominance to enforce \"pick one\" policies, unilaterally raise commissions, set unfair trading conditions, and throttle traffic. These actions severely infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of operators and undermine fair market competition秩序.\nThe Huangshan Huizhou Homestay Association has also mobilized its member units to collect and organize evidence of online travel platform companies suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. These complaints suggest that Trip.com's market dominance may be used to restrict merchants from choosing other platforms, thereby further consolidating its monopoly position.\nAccording to estimates by Bocom International, in 2024, Trip.com accounted for 56% of the Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) in the hotel and travel market, with Tongcheng Travel holding second place at 13%. Combined, these two platforms occupy nearly 70% of the domestic OTA market share.\nThis \"one dominant player\" structure did not emerge from fair competition but was built through capital mergers and acquisitions and rule-based hegemony. Currently, Trip.com's business covers over 1.2 million international hotels in more than 200 countries and regions, as well as 750,000 hotel resources in over 600 domestic cities. Small and medium-sized homestay operators find it nearly impossible to secure a stable stream of guests without relying on the Trip.com platform.\nFurthermore, according to a report by Southern Metropolis Daily, the explicit base commission rate standard for individual OTA platforms like Trip.com is approximately 10% to 15%. However, to obtain better visibility and exposure on these major OTA platforms—such as achieving a higher ranking (e.g., top three pages or homepage) during specific periods like holidays, or purchasing internal advertising slots—merchants often need to pay additional隐性费用.\nWhen these hidden costs are added up, the total commission expenditure can approach 40%, effectively doubling the explicit commission rate. Yet, merchants feel compelled to pay these extra fees to the platform to enhance their exposure.\nDespite many hotel merchants facing declining profits, Trip.com's performance has continued to improve over the past two years. In 2024, Trip.com achieved a net profit of 17.2 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 72%, with 40% of its revenue coming from hotel booking services. However, merchants generally report that, under the algorithmic control of platforms like Trip.com, their profit situation is far from optimistic.\nThe State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn August 5, the Guizhou Provincial Market Supervision Administration collectively interviewed five platforms, including Trip.com, Tongcheng Travel, Meituan, and Fliggy, directly addressing potential issues like \"pick one\" policies, using technical means to interfere with merchant pricing, price fraud, and abuse of market dominance. The authorities demanded that the platforms conduct immediate self-inspections and corrections.\nOn September 17, the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration, in accordance with the law, conducted an administrative interview with the operating entity of Ctrip (Trip.com's Chinese brand), focusing on issues such as Trip.com forcibly modifying hotel prices through its \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function and obstructing its cancellation. The administration issued a \"Rectification Order.\" The investigation concluded that Trip.com had violated the E-Commerce Law and the Interim Provisions on Regulating Online Unfair Competition, finding issues of using \"service agreements, transaction rules, and technical means\" to impose unreasonable restrictions on transactions and transaction prices of merchants on the platform.\nOn the Black Cat Complaint platform, the total number of complaints containing the keyword \"Ctrip\" (Trip.com) reached 160,303. From December last year to January this year alone, there were over 3,600 complaints. The complaints involve issues such as obstacles to refunds for flights and hotels, platform price adjustments, disputes over compensation for price differences, bundled consumption, false advertising, and loan disputes. Regarding Trip.com's travel services, the platform has received a cumulative total of 119,321 consumer complaints, with 2,386 complaints filed in the last 30 days. For Trip.com's financial services, the total number of complaints is 22,870, with 1,273 complaints in the recent 30 days.\nOn January 14, Trip.com Group responded to the event, stating that it would actively cooperate with the regulatory investigation and fully implement the regulatory requirements. This case marks the first formal antitrust investigation launched by the State Administration for Market Regulation against a major platform enterprise since the \"pick one\" cases involving Alibaba and Meituan in 2021 and the case against CNKI for abusing its market dominance at the end of 2022.\nThe background of this立案调查 is the state's systematic effort to curb \"involution-style\" competition. In December 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation explicitly stated that 2026 would see \"strengthened anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement, with in-depth rectification of 'involution-style' competition.\" Officially defined, \"involution-style competition\" refers to low-price, low-quality, low-level competition that not only disrupts the market but also erodes the long-term competitiveness of enterprises.\nThe new Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, introduced in 2025, has brought typical \"involution-style\" behaviors, such as platforms forcing merchants to sell below cost or abusing rules for false transactions, under regulatory scope. In September 2025, the General Office of the State Council issued a notice explicitly requiring online travel platforms not to infringe upon tourist rights through practices like \"big data price discrimination,\" false advertising, or bundled sales, and to promote healthy competition among platforms while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of merchants operating on them.\nIf Trip.com is found to have abused its dominant market position, it could face administrative fines, confiscation of illegal gains, and other penalties. According to Article 57 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, if an operator abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency shall order it to cease the illegal activities, confiscate the illegal gains, and impose a fine of between 1% and 10% of its sales revenue from the previous year.\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"LU1023057109.AUD":"BGF CHINA \"A2\" (AUDHDG) ACC","LU0572944931.SGD":"Janus Henderson Horizon China Opportunities A2 SGD","IE00B543WZ88.USD":"NEUBERGER BERMAN CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU1917777945.USD":"安联专题基金Cl AT Acc","LU0210526637.USD":"JPM CHINA \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0737861772.HKD":"FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA \"A \" (HKD) ACC","BK4142":"酒店、度假村与豪华游轮","LU0605514214.HKD":"FIDELITY CHINA CONSUMER \"A\" (HKD) ACC","LU0417516902.SGD":"Allianz China Equity Cl AT Acc SGD","LU0516423091.SGD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA FOCUS EQUITIES \"I\" (SGD) ACC","HK0000320264.USD":"TAIKANG KAITAI CHINA NEW OPPORTUNITIES FUND \"A\" (USD) ACC","SG9999001903.USD":"Aberdeen Standard Pacific Equity USD","LU0828237510.HKD":"SCHRODER ISF BIC (BRAZ IN CH)\"A\" (HKD) ACC","HK0000306701.USD":"TAIKANG KAITAI CHINA NEW OPPORTUNITIES FUND \"A\" (USD) INC","LU2449936058.SGD":"SUSTAINABLE ASIA EQUITY \"AA\" (SGD) ACC","LU0708995583.HKD":"TEMPLETON CHINA \"A\" (HKD) ACC","LU1224709979.USD":"FIDELITY CHINA FOCUS \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0327786744.USD":"Janus Henderson Horizon China Opportunities A2 USD","IE0003795394.USD":"BNY MELLON ASIAN EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0251143458.SGD":"Fidelity Emerging Markets A-SGD","LU1974910355.USD":"Allianz Thematica Cl AMg DIS USD","BK4585":"ETF&股票定投概念","LU1880383440.USD":"AMUNDI FUNDS CHINA EQUITY \"A2\" (USD) INC","LU2348773727.SGD":"Aberdeen Standard SICAV I - Asian Sustainable Development Equity A Acc SGD-H","SG9999000475.SGD":"Aberdeen Standard Singapore Equity SGD","LU0314109678.HKD":"MANULIFE GF DRAGON GROWTH \"AA\" (HKD) INC","LU0823397285.USD":"BNP PARIBAS SUSTAINABLE ASIA EX-JAPAN EQUITY \"C\" (USD) INC","LU0823426480.USD":"法巴中国股票经典Dis","LU0261950470.USD":"FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS \"A\" ACC","LU1242518931.SGD":"Fullerton Lux Funds - Asia Absolute Alpha A Acc SGD","LU1880383366.USD":"东方汇理中国股票基金 A2 (C)","BK1604":"节假日概念","SG9999000459.SGD":"Aberdeen Standard Pacific Equity SGD","LU0359202008.SGD":"Blackrock China Fund A2 SGD-H","LU0979878070.USD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA ABSOLUTE ALPHA \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0456846285.SGD":"JPMorgan Funds - Greater China A (acc) SGD","LU1303224171.USD":"NINETY ONE GSF ALL CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) INC","LU0737861699.HKD":"FIDELITY CHINA FOCUS \"A \" (HKD) ACC","LU2476274308.USD":"ALLIANZ CHINA FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES \"AT\" (USD) ACC","SG9999002463.SGD":"LionGlobal China Growth SGD","LU2023250504.SGD":"Allianz Thematica Cl AMg DIS H2-SGD","IE0008368742.USD":"首域中国增长基金I Acc","IE00B3M56506.USD":"NEUBERGER BERMAN EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU2476274720.SGD":"ALLIANZ CHINA FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES \"AT\" (SGDHDG) ACC","LU2424517915.HKD":"abrdn SICAV I - ASIAN SDG EQUITY \"A\" (HKD) ACC","SG9999000418.SGD":"Aberdeen Standard Global Technology SGD","BK4588":"碎股","BK1164":"酒店、度假村与豪华游轮","TCOM":"携程网","LU0594300179.USD":"FIDELITY CHINA CONSUMER \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0828238088.HKD":"SCHRODER ISF GLBL EMGNG MKT OPPS \"A\" (HKD) ACC","LU0329678170.USD":"FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA \"A\" (USD) INC","LU2778985437.USD":"ALLIANZ CHINA FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES \"A\" (USD) INC","LU1961090484.USD":"ALLIANZ ALL CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) INC","LU0052750758.USD":"富兰克林中国基金A Acc","LU0488056044.USD":"Allianz Asian Multi Income Plus Cl AM DIS USD","LU0384037296.USD":"ALLIANZ ASIAN MULTI INCOME PLUS \"AT\" (USD) ACC","LU1251922891.USD":"NINETY ONE GSF ALL CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0455707207.USD":"FIDELITY FUNDS CHINA INNOVATION \"A\" (USD) INC","IE00B5MMRT66.SGD":"NEUBERGER BERMAN CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (SGDHDG) ACC","LU0516423174.USD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA FOCUS EQUITIES \"I\" (USD) ACC","LU0039217434.USD":"HSBC GIF CHINESE EQUITY \"AD\" INC","LU0107464264.USD":"abrdn SICAV I - GLOBAL INNOVATION EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0516422952.EUR":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA FOCUS EQUITIES \"I\" (EUR) ACC","LU1770034418.SGD":"ALL CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (SGDHDG) ACC","LU1868837722.USD":"CT (LUX) I GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET EQUITIES \"2\" (USD) ACC","LU1868837565.USD":"CT (LUX) I GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET EQUITIES \"1\" (USD) ACC","IE0008369823.USD":"FSSA HONG KONG GROWTH \"I\" ACC","LU0307460666.USD":"EASTSPRING INVESTMENTS CHINA EQUITY \"A\" ACC","LU0048580855.USD":"富达大中华区A","LU0315179316.USD":"EASTSPRING INVESTMENTS ASIAN DYNAMIC \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU1328277881.USD":"MANULIFE GF DRAGON GROWTH FUND \"AA\" (USD) INC","LU0588546209.SGD":"Eastspring Investments - China Equity Fund AS SGD","LU2242644610.SGD":"Fidelity China Innovation A-ACC-SGD","LU0164865239.USD":"HSBC GIF CHINESE EQUITY \"AC\" (USD) ACC","LU0048575426.USD":"FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS \"A\" INC","LU0359201612.USD":"贝莱德中国基金A2","LU0049853897.USD":"SCHRODER ISF EMERGING MARKETS \"A\" (USD) INC AV","LU2152927971.USD":"NORDEA 1 ASIAN STARS EQUITY \"BP\" (USD) ACC","IE0034224299.USD":"PINEBRIDGE ASIA EX JAPAN EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0051755006.USD":"摩根大通中国A (dist)","LU0261950983.USD":"FIDELITY ASIAN SPECIAL SITUATIONS \"A\" ACC","LU0540923850.HKD":"ALLIANZ HONG KONG EQUITY \"A\" (HKD) INC","IE00B8HQ1Z84.USD":"BNY MELLON GLOBAL EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0871576103.HKD":"HSBC GIF CHINESE EQUITY \"AC\" (HKD) ACC","LU1720050803.USD":"安联全方位中国股票基金","LU0181495838.USD":"施罗德新兴亚洲A Acc","LU0269904917.USD":"SCHRODER ISF GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET OPPORTUNITIES \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0456827905.SGD":"JPMorgan Funds - China A (acc) SGD","LU0143863198.USD":"CT (LUX) I GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET EQUITIES\"AU\" (USD) ACC","LU2153591404.USD":"Aberdeen Standard SICAV I - Asian Sustainable Development Equity A Acc USD","LU0231483743.USD":"abrdn SICAV I - ALL CHINA SUSTAINABLE EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","HK0000320223.HKD":"TAIKANG KAITAI CHINA NEW OPPORTUNITIES FUND \"A\" (HKD) ACC","SG9999001093.SGD":"United Greater China Fund A Acc SGD","IE00B0JY6N72.USD":"PINEBRIDGE GLOBAL EMERGING MARKETS FOCUS EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0348827113.USD":"ALLIANZ RCM CHINA \"AT\" ACC","LU2399975544.HKD":"ALLIANZ ALL CHINA EQUITY \"AT\" (HKD) ACC","LU1282649810.SGD":"Allianz Asian Multi Income Plus Cl AMg DIS H2-SGD","IE00B8L5B284.USD":"BNY MELLON GLOBAL EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES \"B\" (USD) INC","LU2039709279.SGD":"MANULIFE GF DRAGON GROWTH \"AA\" (SGDHDG) INC","LU0634319403.HKD":"ALLIANZ HONG KONG EQUITY \"AT\" (HKD) ACC","LU0516422366.SGD":"Fullerton Lux Funds - Asia Focus Equities A Acc SGD","LU0211977185.USD":"EASTSPRING INVESTMENTS GREATER CHINA EQUITY \"A\" ACC","LU1956131251.USD":"BNP PARIBAS SUSTAINABLE ASIA EX-JAPAN EQUITY \"C\"MD (USD) INC","LU0143863784.USD":"CT (LUX) I GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET EQUITIES\"DU\" (USD) ACC","LU1102505929.USD":"FIDELITY SUSTAINABLE EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","IE00BPRC5H50.USD":"NEUBERGER BERMAN CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) INC","BK4526":"热门中概股","LU0509642566.USD":"SCHRODER ISF GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET OPPORTUNITIES \"A\" (USD) INC AV","LU0054237671.USD":"FIDELITY ASIAN SPECIAL SITUATIONS \"A\" INC","LU1719994722.HKD":"NINETY ONE GSF ALL CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (HKD) ACC","LU1102505762.USD":"富达新兴市场焦点 A","LU0593848301.USD":"未来资产亚洲卓越消费股票基金A","LU3063872942.SGD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS ASIA EQUITIES \"I\" (SGD) ACC","LU0417516738.SGD":"Allianz Hong Kong Equity AT Acc SGD","LU1481107354.HKD":"HSBC GIF HONG KONG EQUITY \"AD\" (HKD) INC","LU0173614495.USD":"富达中国焦点A","LU0868486357.SGD":"JPMorgan Funds - Emerging Markets Opportunities A (acc) SGD-H","LU1868838027.USD":"CT (LUX) I GLOBAL EMERGING MARKET EQUITIES \"8\" (USD) ACC","LU0348735423.USD":"ALLIANZ HONG KONG EQUITY \"A\" (USD) INC","LU0359201885.HKD":"BGF CHINA \"A2\" (HKD) ACC","LU0561508036.HKD":"ALLIANZ CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (HKD) INC","SG9999002562.SGD":"LionGlobal Asia Pacific SGD","LU0823397103.USD":"BNP PARIBAS SUSTAINABLE ASIA EX-JAPAN EQUITY \"C\" (USD) ACC","LU0594300419.USD":"富达中国消费基金A","IE0003851619.USD":"BNY MELLON ASIAN EQUITY \"B\" (USD) ACC","LU0650527681.SGD":"Fidelity China Consumer A-SGD","HK0000306685.HKD":"TAIKANG KAITAI CHINA NEW OPPORTUNITIES FUND \"A\" (HKD) INC","LU0329678337.USD":"FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA \"A\" (USD)","LU0348825331.USD":"ALLIANZ CHINA EQUITY \"A\" (USD) INC","LU0320764599.SGD":"FTIF - Templeton China A Acc SGD","LU0431992006.USD":"摩根大通新兴市场机会A（acc）","LU2106854487.HKD":"ALLIANZ THEMATICA \"AMG\" (HKD) INC","LU1794554557.SGD":"Allianz All China Equity AT Acc H2-SGD","LU1282649067.USD":"ALLIANZ ASIAN MULTI INCOME PLUS \"AMG\" (USD) INC A","IE00B031HY20.USD":"FSSA CHINA GROWTH \"I\" (USD) INC","BK1588":"回港中概股","LU1242518857.USD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA ABSOLUTE ALPHA \"I\" (USD) ACC","LU0516422440.USD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ASIA FOCUS EQUITIES \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0287142896.SGD":"Fidelity China Focus A-SGD","09961":"携程集团—S","BK1615":"港股-互联网","LU1808992512.USD":"AB ALL CHINA EQUITY PORTFOLIO \"A\" (USD) ACC","BK4531":"中概回港概念","LU0828237940.HKD":"SCHRODER ISF EMERGING ASIA \"A\" (HKD) ACC","BK4534":"瑞士信贷持仓","BK1587":"次新股","SG9999011746.SGD":"PINEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS - ACORNS OF ASIA BA (SGD) ACC","LU0531971595.HKD":"HSBC GIF CHINESE EQUITY \"AD\" (HKD) INC","LU0823426308.USD":"法巴中国股票基金","LU0106252389.USD":"SCHRODER ISF EMERGING MARKETS \"A\" ACC","LU0011963245.USD":"abrdn SICAV I ASIA PACIFIC SUSTAINAB LE EQUITY \"A\" (USD) ACC","LU0228659784.USD":"施罗德金砖四国基金","LU1813983027.USD":"MANULIFE GF DRAGON GROWTH \"AA\" (USD) INC","LU0164880469.USD":"HSBC GIF HONG KONG EQUITY \"AC\" ACC","LU1328615791.USD":"FULLERTON LUX FUNDS - ALL CHINA EQUITIES \"I\" (USD) ACC","LU0149721374.USD":"HSBC GIF HONG KONG EQUITY \"AD\" INC","LU0370786039.SGD":"Fidelity Greater China A-SGD","LU0502904849.HKD":"FIDELITY FUNDS CHINA INNOVATION \"A\" (HKD) ACC"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197396133","content_text":"The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn January 14, according to a message posted on the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation, the regulator, based on preliminary verifications and in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, has opened an investigation into Trip.com Group Limited for suspected abuse of its dominant market position to engage in monopolistic practices.\nThis立案调查 by the State Administration for Market Regulation did not come out of the blue; it was conducted based on prior inspections and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. The investigation primarily focuses on Trip.com Group's business conduct within its hotel operations, especially suspected abuses of its market dominance. As a leading enterprise in the online travel industry, Trip.com Group holds a significant market share in both hotel bookings and flight ticket agency services.\nPreviously, according to media reports, a large number of merchants have accused platforms like Trip.com of controlling them with unreasonable terms.\n\"We truly feel like we are working for the platform now; our pricing power has been completely taken away,\" said Zhong Yang, manager of a branded hotel near Wutai Mountain in Shanxi. After discovering the issue, Zhong Yang filed complaints. While Meituan would often revert the changes or compensate for price differences, Trip.com, despite sometimes offering immediate compensation, would later penalize him for breach of contract. His appeal remained unresolved for three months.\nWhat infuriates merchants even more is the extreme difficulty in deactivating the \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function. Dai Yun, a homestay owner in Zhejiang, revealed that the bottom-line prices they set are frequently breached. Lower prices hurt profits, while higher prices deter customers, leaving them in a dilemma. The manager of a budget hotel in Haikou stated that she had to apply to close the function over ten times repeatedly, stuck in a cycle of \"application-rejection-reapplication-rejection.\" Even upon successful deactivation, the account manager would often reactivate the function the very next day.\nWan Jue, a special researcher at the E-Commerce Research Center of Wangjing She and a registered foreign lawyer at Hong Kong's Ling Yong Shan Law Firm, stated that if Trip.com uses its market dominance to force price adjustments, it could constitute an \"abuse of market dominance\" under the Anti-Monopoly Law.\nTrip.com's \"pick one\" or de facto exclusive cooperation clauses are also a focal point of the investigation. Merchants with Trip.com's \"Special Badge\" might be required not to list on competing platforms (like Meituan), while commission rates remain high. In December 2025, the Yunnan Provincial Tourism Homestay Association announced it would initiate anti-monopoly rights protection work against unfair competition by OTAs, explicitly pointing out complaints about Trip.com enforcing \"pick one\"霸王条款, among other issues.\nThe announcement mentioned that in recent years, the association has received numerous complaints from members, reporting that OTA platforms like Trip.com exploit their market dominance to enforce \"pick one\" policies, unilaterally raise commissions, set unfair trading conditions, and throttle traffic. These actions severely infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of operators and undermine fair market competition秩序.\nThe Huangshan Huizhou Homestay Association has also mobilized its member units to collect and organize evidence of online travel platform companies suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. These complaints suggest that Trip.com's market dominance may be used to restrict merchants from choosing other platforms, thereby further consolidating its monopoly position.\nAccording to estimates by Bocom International, in 2024, Trip.com accounted for 56% of the Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) in the hotel and travel market, with Tongcheng Travel holding second place at 13%. Combined, these two platforms occupy nearly 70% of the domestic OTA market share.\nThis \"one dominant player\" structure did not emerge from fair competition but was built through capital mergers and acquisitions and rule-based hegemony. Currently, Trip.com's business covers over 1.2 million international hotels in more than 200 countries and regions, as well as 750,000 hotel resources in over 600 domestic cities. Small and medium-sized homestay operators find it nearly impossible to secure a stable stream of guests without relying on the Trip.com platform.\nFurthermore, according to a report by Southern Metropolis Daily, the explicit base commission rate standard for individual OTA platforms like Trip.com is approximately 10% to 15%. However, to obtain better visibility and exposure on these major OTA platforms—such as achieving a higher ranking (e.g., top three pages or homepage) during specific periods like holidays, or purchasing internal advertising slots—merchants often need to pay additional隐性费用.\nWhen these hidden costs are added up, the total commission expenditure can approach 40%, effectively doubling the explicit commission rate. Yet, merchants feel compelled to pay these extra fees to the platform to enhance their exposure.\nDespite many hotel merchants facing declining profits, Trip.com's performance has continued to improve over the past two years. In 2024, Trip.com achieved a net profit of 17.2 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 72%, with 40% of its revenue coming from hotel booking services. However, merchants generally report that, under the algorithmic control of platforms like Trip.com, their profit situation is far from optimistic.\nThe State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.\nOn August 5, the Guizhou Provincial Market Supervision Administration collectively interviewed five platforms, including Trip.com, Tongcheng Travel, Meituan, and Fliggy, directly addressing potential issues like \"pick one\" policies, using technical means to interfere with merchant pricing, price fraud, and abuse of market dominance. The authorities demanded that the platforms conduct immediate self-inspections and corrections.\nOn September 17, the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration, in accordance with the law, conducted an administrative interview with the operating entity of Ctrip (Trip.com's Chinese brand), focusing on issues such as Trip.com forcibly modifying hotel prices through its \"Price Adjustment Assistant\" function and obstructing its cancellation. The administration issued a \"Rectification Order.\" The investigation concluded that Trip.com had violated the E-Commerce Law and the Interim Provisions on Regulating Online Unfair Competition, finding issues of using \"service agreements, transaction rules, and technical means\" to impose unreasonable restrictions on transactions and transaction prices of merchants on the platform.\nOn the Black Cat Complaint platform, the total number of complaints containing the keyword \"Ctrip\" (Trip.com) reached 160,303. From December last year to January this year alone, there were over 3,600 complaints. The complaints involve issues such as obstacles to refunds for flights and hotels, platform price adjustments, disputes over compensation for price differences, bundled consumption, false advertising, and loan disputes. Regarding Trip.com's travel services, the platform has received a cumulative total of 119,321 consumer complaints, with 2,386 complaints filed in the last 30 days. For Trip.com's financial services, the total number of complaints is 22,870, with 1,273 complaints in the recent 30 days.\nOn January 14, Trip.com Group responded to the event, stating that it would actively cooperate with the regulatory investigation and fully implement the regulatory requirements. This case marks the first formal antitrust investigation launched by the State Administration for Market Regulation against a major platform enterprise since the \"pick one\" cases involving Alibaba and Meituan in 2021 and the case against CNKI for abusing its market dominance at the end of 2022.\nThe background of this立案调查 is the state's systematic effort to curb \"involution-style\" competition. In December 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation explicitly stated that 2026 would see \"strengthened anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement, with in-depth rectification of 'involution-style' competition.\" Officially defined, \"involution-style competition\" refers to low-price, low-quality, low-level competition that not only disrupts the market but also erodes the long-term competitiveness of enterprises.\nThe new Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, introduced in 2025, has brought typical \"involution-style\" behaviors, such as platforms forcing merchants to sell below cost or abusing rules for false transactions, under regulatory scope. In September 2025, the General Office of the State Council issued a notice explicitly requiring online travel platforms not to infringe upon tourist rights through practices like \"big data price discrimination,\" false advertising, or bundled sales, and to promote healthy competition among platforms while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of merchants operating on them.\nIf Trip.com is found to have abused its dominant market position, it could face administrative fines, confiscation of illegal gains, and other penalties. According to Article 57 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, if an operator abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency shall order it to cease the illegal activities, confiscate the illegal gains, and impose a fine of between 1% and 10% of its sales revenue from the previous year.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TCOM":1,"09961":1}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":3,"optionInvolvedFlag":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}