CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
The first merger-review litigation A further milestone was the first effective Chinese judgment reviewing a merger-control decision since the AML took effect in 2008. In Beijing Tuobixi Phar- maceutical Co Ltd v SAMR , the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rejected a challenge to SAMR’s 2023 conditional approval of Simcere Pharmaceutical’s acquisition of an equity interest in Tuobixi. SAMR had identified possible exclusionary effects in the China batroxobin injection market and imposed remedies including termination of an exclusive arrangement, divestment of a pipeline business and price reduc - tions. Tuobixi did not appeal, and the judgment became effective in 2025. The published account of the judgment is important for both jurisdiction and standard of review. It confirms SAMR’s authority to attach conditions to a notified concentration, explains that prohibition is not the first or only statutory remedy, and frames review around competition problems caused by the concentration. It also records a comparatively extensive administrative process involving comments from the parties, mar - ket testing, consultations with public bodies and an industry association, economic analysis and expert consultation. One case cannot settle how intensively courts will revisit SAMR’s economic assessment. It does, however, make merger decisions a genuine liti - gation risk and gives notifying parties a clearer record against which to evaluate a possible challenge. Public interest litigation adds a collective enforcement route Antitrust public-interest litigation is still small in abso - lute terms, but it grew rapidly in 2025. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate reported that procuratorates opened 31 antitrust public-interest cases, an increase of 93.8% year on year. The figure must be read accu - rately: it records matters formally opened by procu - ratorates, not 31 court judgments or even 31 filed lawsuits. Public-interest procedure frequently begins with investigation and pre-litigation engagement, and a matter may be resolved without a contested judg - ment. Even on that basis, the increase is significant because it introduces an institution with investiga - tive capacity and a public mandate into areas where dispersed consumers or small businesses may have weak incentives to sue individually.
nificance is doctrinal: platform and payment services may be analysed as separate markets; a restriction embedded in the user journey may be treated as a trading condition; and an earlier administrative finding may materially assist the claimant’s proof. Judicial review reaches new decisions and new defendants Judicial review now performs a dual role: it tests enforcement decisions and also constrains public authorities that restrict competition. In the shared electric bicycle case, local bodies had created and awarded an exclusive operating right without a suf - ficient legal basis. The Supreme People’s Court held that the arrangement amounted to an abuse of admin - istrative power to restrict transactions, overturned the first-instance judgment and set aside the adminis - trative act. The court described the case as its first finding of an administrative abuse that excluded or restricted competition. The decision matters beyond micromobility because it confirms that market par - ticipants may obtain direct judicial relief against local market-entry restrictions when the statutory condi - tions are met. The cement association and camphor active phar - maceutical ingredient cases show the other side of review. In both cases, the courts upheld administra - tive penalties after examining the factual basis, legal characterisation and proportionality of the sanction. The cement association was found to have played a decisive or leading role by creating communication channels and organising co-ordination among com - peting producers. In the camphor case, the court accepted strong demand-side substitution between natural and synthetic camphor and upheld a fine equal to 5% of the undertaking’s preceding-year sales, tak - ing account of the seriousness of the conduct and the undertaking’s lack of cooperation. These deci - sions demonstrate that litigants may hardly succeed in revoking or altering such penalty decisions in admin - istrative litigation unless they can produce substantial and conclusive contradictory evidence to prove fac - tual errors, procedural violations, improper application of law or obvious inappropriate discretion on the part of administrative authorities.
79 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook