Why does monopoly management auto parts consumers not win the monopoly of Dongfeng Nissan?

The total cost of a new car from purchase to end-of-life, after-sale maintenance accounts for about 45%. A fair and healthy auto repair market is of great interest to consumers, and the original spare parts for exclusive use are damaging the effective competition in China's auto aftermarket.

Under the framework of the "Anti-Monopoly Law," the company will provide supporting laws and regulations for automobile after-sales services and ensure the multi-channel circulation of parts and technical information to create an enabling environment for the development of the automobile after-sales service industry and accelerate the implementation of the "Auto Industry Adjustment and Revitalization Plan." The goal of coordinated development of the automobile manufacturing and automotive service industries.

Dongfeng Nissan was sued for monopolizing auto parts and Li Jianhua's proposal. In May 2011, consumers Liu Dahua sued Dongfeng Nissan Passenger Vehicle Co., Ltd. and Hunan Huayuan Industrial Co., Ltd. to monopolize the operation of auto parts, and Changsha Intermediate People's Court The monthly verdict that Liu Dahua lost.

In this case, Liu Dahua believed that Dongfeng Nissan’s abuse of market dominance and the formulation of a monopolistic business policy, together with its 4S stores, excluding competitors and squeezed out high profits, seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. The court held that, in anti-monopoly civil lawsuits, monopolistic behavior that abuses dominant market position is a fact that hinders competition, and the existence of such facts should have stricter evidence standards. Generally, thorough market research, economic analysis, and special studies are required. Or make use of public statistics and other research results to quantitatively analyze market dominance and determine its dominant position. The plaintiff Liu Dahua did not conduct sufficient research on the auto parts market and the auto repair market, and the evidence submitted could not prove the defendant’s dominant market position. Therefore, the plaintiff’s litigation request lacked evidence to support the investigation.

Later, at the Shenzhen CPPCC meeting held in early January 2012, Li Jianhua submitted a proposal on “Proposal on Strengthening the Supervision of Automobile 4S Stores and Protecting the Legal Rights of Consumers”. In the proposal, Li Jianhua cited a number of measures in response to the high price of accessories and unreasonable maintenance costs for 4S stores. As of January 10, the highest rate of support in online surveys was "to break the monopoly of 4S stores, require auto manufacturers to release licensed supplies of original parts as soon as possible after the launch of new cars, and cultivate a batch of professional and standard maintenance companies. "Local competition with 4S stores and small auto repairs" is a measure.

The controversial behavior of the Liu Dahua case was the sale of accessories at high prices and the tying of maintenance services. The controversy was actually caused by the auto manufacturers controlling the supply of original parts through 4S stores. Li Jianhua’s proposal and Dongfeng Nissan’s sueding monopoly to run auto parts cases reflect the restrictions and damages of the original parts’ exclusive supply to the effective competition of China’s automobile aftermarket from different angles and levels.

The original parts are designed to hinder market competition and harm the interests of consumers. It should be said that the auto manufacturer's exclusive use of original spare parts exclusively through 4S stores is a typical vertical restriction of competition.

"Original parts", also known as "original parts" and "pure parts," refer to accessories printed with OEM logos produced by OEM parts suppliers for OEMs. In the Chinese market, the original parts are usually supplied from the after-sales department of the vehicle manufacturer to each 4S shop. The original spare parts were designed to make it impossible or difficult for independent parts dealers and independent car repairers outside the 4S shop channel to purchase original parts, which limited the competition in the auto aftermarket and maintenance markets and hindered the rapid repair of automobiles. The rapid development of insurance industry has reduced consumer choices.

The price of accessories and maintenance services directly provided by the original spare parts directly to the 4S shop is much higher than the comparable parts provided by the independent repairer (eg the “factory accessories” with the same function and the same quality as the original parts) and the repair service. price. According to reports, a person in charge of a 4S store once said: “The price of two cars can be sold by dismantling a new car and selling parts.” The high profits of the original accessories are evident. On the one hand, non-original parts cause damage to the car and are not responsible for warranty terms and maintenance service information asymmetry, locking up a considerable number of owners for the 4S store. On the other hand, more and more car owners began to choose "4S shop during the warranty period, roadside shop outside the warranty period."

According to analysts from the industry, the original spare parts supply is exclusive, and in addition to causing spurious prices for 4S shop accessories and maintenance, it is still one of the reasons why fake accessories are found in roadside shops, auto parts cities and other channels. Under the hidden dangers.

Can the "Anti-Monopoly Law" regulate the use of original spare parts for the sole purpose of determining whether China's existing laws are capable of regulating original accessories and other vertical restrictions on competition?

Article 14 of China’s “Anti-Monopoly Law” prohibits the fixed resale price and the limited minimum resale price, and at the same time prohibits the operator from negotiating with the counterparty to achieve other vertical agreements recognized by the State Council’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies. Article 15 provides that Exemption of the conditions and types of monopoly agreements. It can be said that China's "Anti-Monopoly Law" provides a competition law framework that regulates vertical restraints on competition. However, the relevant clauses are highly principled and abstract and lack practicality in practice. In the absence of further detailed supporting laws and judicial interpretations, it is basically not feasible to regulate various types of vertical restrictions on competition in the market in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the Anti-Monopoly Law.

In Dongfeng Nissan’s sued to monopolize auto parts operation, the plaintiff sued for the high price of parts and tying services of 4S stores caused by the exclusive supply of original parts, and the basis for the plaintiff's lawsuit was the 17th that the “Anti-Monopoly Law” prohibited the abuse of market dominance. Article. However, according to Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the plaintiff first needs to define the relevant market, and then prove that the defendant has a dominant position in the relevant market, and then prove that it abuses the dominant market position. It is very difficult for the plaintiff to complete the relevant certification responsibility. The first-instance case of the case stated that the adoption of the "Anti-Monopoly Law" prohibiting the abuse of market dominance and challenging vertical restraint of competition is not appropriate. It also shows that when our courts apply the "Anti-Monopoly Law," they are rigorous in their burden of proof and standards of proof, as well as their misuse. Prudent position when acting.

However, it is understandable that the plaintiff of the case is suing under Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law because Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law does not explicitly prohibit vertical restrictions other than the fixed resale price and the limited minimum selling price. The 14-volume clause is based on the premise that the administrative law enforcement agencies of the anti-monopoly law have found violations. The Plaintiff chose to file a private lawsuit directly. It is obviously difficult to rely on Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law.

Drawing on the experience of the European Union in enacting the "Anti-Monopoly Law" supporting legislation to restrict the competition caused by the exclusive supply of original parts, the relevant system of the EU competition law is worth our country's reference.

The European Union's "Automotive Industry Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulations" of 2010 categorically prohibits three types of vertical restriction of competition for the supply of auto aftermarket parts, including the restrictions on the members of the selective distribution system to sell accessories required for auto repair services to independent maintenance companies, and Agreements between automakers and suppliers of accessories, repair tools, testing instruments, etc. to restrict such suppliers from selling to suppliers or independent dealers, authorized or independent service providers, or terminal consumers related accessories, repair tools, and inspection instruments Or other device behavior.

In addition, the European Union's "Executive Agreement on Vertical Agreement on the Automotive Industry" of 2010 clarifies the right of independent repairers to obtain technical information. It states that parts and technical information are "key materials." The freedom and ability to fully acquire parts and technical information determine the independence. Can repairers compete effectively with authorized repairers to provide consumers with safe, high-quality car repair services? In other words, the EU competition law clearly protects the right of independent repairers to purchase original accessories and obtain relevant technical information.

If Li Jianhua’s proposal and the Dongfeng Nissan’s complaint about monopolistic operation of auto parts reflect the problem of the supply of original accessories for the EU, how will consumers seek legal remedies?

We assume that an automobile manufacturer only sells genuine parts through a franchise dealer and prohibits the franchisor from selling auto repair required parts to an independent maintenance company, and at the same time, restricting the original parts supplier to an independent dealer, independent repairer, or terminal Consumers sell accessories needed for vehicle maintenance. The behavior of the automaker will most likely constitute vertical restraint of competition prohibited by the EU's 2010 edition of the Vertical Agreement on Motor Vehicles Block Exemption. Based on this, consumers who believe that their legitimate rights and interests have been harmed may report to the European Commission alleged violations of the competition laws by the operators, or they may consider lodging claims for private anti-monopoly damages in the courts of the Member States that have jurisdiction over them. More importantly, due to the strong guarantees specified in the EU competition law, independent repairers and authorized dealers or repairers compete with each other in the sales and maintenance of accessories, even if there are high-priced sales of parts and high-cost maintenance services. It will also be self-destructive because consumers have sufficient and guaranteed choices.

Data shows that from the purchase of a new car to the total cost of scrapping, the cost of car purchases accounted for about 35%, taxes, insurance, fuel, etc. accounted for about 20%, and after-sale maintenance accounted for about 45%. Car repair can not be separated from the supply of accessories. With the continuous decline in vehicle profits and the continuous extension of the automobile industry chain to the downstream, the supply of spare parts has become an important profit growth point. Li Jianhua suggested that the state, from a legal perspective, require auto manufacturers to liberalize the licensed supply of original spare parts as soon as possible after the new car is put on the market, so that auto parts can be freely circulated in the market and promote its prices to return to normal levels.

According to the specific conditions of China's market and the use of the European Union model, the relevant laws and regulations for automobile after-sales service are enacted under the framework of the “Anti-Monopoly Law”, and the multi-channel circulation of parts and technical information is guaranteed. It is from the legal level that Li Jianhua’s proposal is promoted. The best solution for effective competition and consumer rights. Releasing the original spare parts supply will surely help create an enabling environment for the development of the automobile after-sales service industry, and accelerate the realization of the coordinated development of the automobile manufacturing industry and the automotive service industry proposed in the "Auto Industry Adjustment and Revitalization Plan."