The superintendence of markets dropped a single ticket: $5,179 million in fines, $122 million in reserves, up to 7. 5 per centFineI don't know。TransportThe second issue of the announcement: "receive and obey."
That's a good one。
It's like the highway robber gets caught wearing blood on his hands and laughs, "next time you won't." the problem is that he figured out that the deal made $5 million, threw up $500,000 and made $4. 5 million. It's called a conviction? It's called a cost actuarial。
I. ContinuesMonopoliesA lesson for everyone
What did you do with the ride? And say, "i do not produce anything, but i make all your things to sell according to my rules."。
You built the hotel, you pitched the renovation, you feed the employees, you carry the risk -- but the pricing is mine. It's locked to death, it's crushed to death, it's changed the price for you, it's changed more than a dozen times a day, and you turn it off and it starts again. I'll change you to 130 for 480. Don't you agree? All right, limit the flow, pick the cards, lower the power, and you can't sell any room。
It's not business cooperation. It's digital kidnapping。
What's more disgusting? It does not simply say, “you must be exclusive”. The contract was not written, and the operations manager said on the telephone that the oral delivery rate was over 90 per cent. There's been a two-way trip: we didn't force it, we volunteered. A “moderate coercion” - i give you two ways: either to listen or to starve. Are you saying this is voluntary or forced
Ali used to write "two or one" in black and white, to be a clear-cut robber; he was too lazy to take a ride and pressed the button behind the algorithm. What's this called? It's called the barbarians of civilized people, the bandits in their suits。
A platform makes more money than the whole industry combined — is that normal
Let's take a look at the suffocating data set:
Net profit in 2025 was $33. 3 billion, with a net interest rate of 53. 3 per cent. What is the concept of 53 per cent net interest rate? Guizhou is 52. 5 per cent. A company that does not build a house, does not lay an inch of rails and does not fly an aircraft makes more money than the national name luxury。
By way of comparison, the total net profits of all listed companies during the same period were only $19 billion. With a family, 14 billion more than the sum of the entire industrial chain。
This is not “business is good”, it is systematic。
For example, there are 100 restaurants on a street, making a total of $100 a day. All of a sudden, there was a delivery platform, no cooking, no dishes, no shop, but 53 from this $100 a day. The remaining $47 was allocated to 100 restaurants, thousands of employees and tens of thousands of square metres of rent. And the platform said, "look, it's easy for me to give you food." and the restaurant said, "you don't have business without me." and the investor said, "my business model is too good."
It's not a good business model. It's a parasite growing too fat to be a subject。
The five crimes of capital monopolies - each ten thousand times more terrible than the price
First: it kills fair and competitive markets。
Where to eliminate the two largest rivals, the market share was 56 per cent and the “shipway system” plus 70 per cent. And then lock the best hotel with a "special card." new players come in? No good house. Can't get a good house? Can't get a user. Can't attract users? Can't get money. No money? Dead。
It's a perfect closed death sentence. You can't even find evidence that it is illegal — there is no explicit exclusion, all of it “commercial incentives”. But what it does is exactly the same as the standard oil of the year: monopoly, price, harvest. If rockefeller survives today, he'll probably bow at the door of the headquarters。
Second: it turned the real business into a “digital tenant”。
The 15-30 per cent commission, the alternative extension fee, the withholding of reserves, together with hidden charges, put the actual commercial rate at close to 40 per cent. The average gross domestic product in the hotel sector is only 10-25 per cent. What does that mean? This means that the hotel pays 40 cents for each dollar it earns; the remaining 60 cents, with the deduction of the rent for artificial power and water, the owner probably works for the bank and is also a free supplier for the trip。
"the season seems to be a good one, and at the end of the year, the profits are all hanging in the backstage." this is not a paragraph. This is the real situation of millions of hotel operators。
Number three: it tricked everyone with a “low price”。
“the lowest price on the internet” — the five words are the biggest veil of the journey. Consumers look at: wow, so cheap! I don't know where the price came from. Hotel profits have been stretched to the limit, and only reduced supplies have been stolen: weeds have been reduced, breakfast cancelled, facilities have not been repaired and services have been reduced. Consumers think that they have taken advantage of them, and in fact they have purchased inferior products. What is more, it is also sophisticated through big data — older users see prices more expensive than new users. Eat on both sides: crush the merchant and kill the user. Brokers earn not only price differentials, but also asymmetrical information and algorithmic manipulation。
Number four: it makes algorithms a tool for lynching capital。
The “price-fixing assistant” could not be turned off, the client's services were ignored and the vendor was not informed of the change in the record. What is the right of a private enterprise to unilaterally modify the prices of millions of guest houses throughout the country? If it were to be placed in the real economy, it would be equivalent to a sudden announcement by wal-mart that, from now on, the prices of all suppliers on the shelf would be fixed by wal-mart and the suppliers would go down without their consent。
In any normal country, this is a violent incident. But in china, the internet is called "technological innovation". Innovators! This is to package private power into technology neutrality and plunder into intelligence。
Book v: it is creating “innovative deserts”。
When a platform lies on its back, it earns 53% net interest, and what power does it have to innovate? And when a hotel is hard to survive, how can it innovate? The whole industry is in a dead end: the most profitable part does not need innovation, and the most important part does not have money。
Young people don't want to open a hotel — they don't have to write a few lines a year. The return on investment in the arts industry is drained from the platform, and capital flows naturally to more “efficient” locations — for example, by buying shared shares. As a result, the real economy is becoming increasingly empty. That's the worst thing about it: the monopoly isn't about split cakes, it's about eating people who make cakes。
Is $4,517 million enough to hurt? I'm pessimistic
Honestly, i doubt the effect of this ticket。
Why? In 2025, the net profit alone was $33. 3 billion. 51. 79 billion yuan, equivalent to four and a half months of profits. For a company with a net interest rate of 53 per cent, it is like paying a $4,000 fine for 50,000 a month — a flesh pain, but not a life change。
More crucially, the greatest challenge of antimonopoly is never “characterization”, but “prevention of relapse”. After ali's $18. 2 billion, are we still blocking the link? After $3. 4 billion, did you really disappear? History tells us that, after every ticket of price, monopolistic behaviour evolves — from overt to invisible, from contract to algorithm, from “opt-one” to “flow tilt + invisible flow”。
This time we're going to say "full overhaul," offline specialty gold, offline price adjuster. But i bet in three months it's going to introduce something like smart gain optimization pro, which is exactly the same as a price-fixing assistant, with a skin change。
This is based on the experience of china's antimonopoly history over the past decade or so。
V. Relevant implications of the purpose
The greatest value of the case is not the amount of money, but the fact that it sends two signals:
The first is “the confiscation of illegal proceeds” which has finally landed. In the past, anti-monopoly tickets were often regarded by enterprises as “concessional fees” — and once paid, they could continue to be monopolized. It's different this time, the regulatory attitude is very clear: you eat more from a monopoly, you spit out a lot. That's the real deterrent。
Secondly, the 7. 5 per cent ratio sends a gradient signal: the greater the market share, the greater the punishment. This is a warning to all platforms... - don't think you can do whatever you want. On the contrary, the higher you sit, the harder you fall。
But then again, the fine is just a cure. The real solution is to break the “one size fits all” pattern and bring competition back. This requires not only regulatory tickets, but also access to markets, enforcement of data portability rights and living space for small and medium platforms — much more difficult than administrative sanctions。
It's not the first and not the last. But as long as the monopolists are allowed to “ache” to their bones, rather than to “tits” on their skins, the market scales will turn back a little bit。
51. 79 billion, buy a lesson. Is it expensive? It's not expensive to travel. But for the industry as a whole, this is probably the cheapest “sensitizer” in recent years。
