Does an E-Commerce Platform’s “Lowest Price” Rule Amount to an Illegal “Pick-One” Practice?

During the 2025 “Double 11” shopping festival, JD.com’s new pricing policy sparked widespread debate across the e-commerce world.

According to Yangcheng Evening News, JD.com instructed brands to maintain the lowest prices on its platform. Sellers were told not to issue coupons, display “discount” labels, or even mention phrases such as “cheaper” when livestreaming on platforms like Douyin. Those who violated the rule could face penalties ranging from one million to tens of millions of yuan. To enforce compliance, JD.com even formed a dedicated inspection team to monitor merchants’ prices across other platforms.

A JD.com insider responded that brands like Midea generate massive sales through JD, and the policy simply ensures that prices on JD remain competitive. “The idea,” the spokesperson said, “is to protect consumers by making sure the largest platforms offer fair prices.” They also argued that this does not constitute a “pick-one” restriction, since JD is not explicitly forbidding merchants from selling elsewhere.

For major sales seasons such as Double 11 and 618, brands typically sell across multiple platforms—JD, Taobao, Douyin, and Pinduoduo among them—where each offers different subsidies and coupons. Prices fluctuate so rapidly that even sellers themselves can struggle to keep track. JD’s latest rule does not outright ban multi-platform sales, but the threat of steep fines effectively limits merchants’ ability to set prices independently elsewhere. This “soft version” of “pick one from two” can still suppress fair market competition.

On October 27, a screenshot circulated online showing that appliance giant Midea was fined 5 million yuan by JD.com for “price violations.” The penalty was allegedly issued on October 21, 2025, and accused Midea of pricing products higher on JD than on other channels. JD later denied the fine, but a follow-up image on October 29 revealed Midea’s successful appeal, citing consistent pricing across platforms and no material competitive impact. Even so, the controversy itself has had a chilling effect, warning other merchants against defying JD’s pricing directives.

China’s 2021 antitrust ruling against Alibaba established that forbidding merchants to join rival platforms constitutes monopolistic behavior. Legal experts note that JD’s actions may resemble this, albeit in subtler form. JD’s revised Platform Price Management Rules, released October 16, 2025, explicitly require merchants’ JD prices not to exceed those on other platforms. Violations can result in harsh sanctions—store suspensions, account freezes, and fines up to 1 million yuan.

This mirrors the logic of a “Most-Favored-Nation” clause, where a company demands to always receive the best deal. Liu Xu, a researcher at Tsinghua University’s National Strategy Institute, explained that if a platform compels merchants to offer it the lowest price, the practice may constitute such a clause—especially if the platform holds significant market power. The Antimonopoly Guidelines for Platform Economy specify that such evaluation depends on the platform’s market dominance and merchant dependence. If enforcement of these clauses shows the platform can dictate terms, that itself may prove its dominant position and raise antitrust concerns.

Several legal scholars, including Wuhan University’s Yuan Ye, further warn that JD’s policy could be viewed as abusing its “relative advantage,” newly defined under the 2025 revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Though case precedents are scarce, this clause empowers regulators to act when a dominant platform imposes unreasonable pricing restrictions.

JD may not dominate the entire online retail sector, but it leads several product categories—particularly electronics and appliances, which contribute nearly half its revenue. For many brands in these segments, JD accounts for more than 50% of sales, creating a high degree of dependency and giving JD de facto market power. Some merchants, however, report no sign of inspections or fines in their product categories, suggesting JD enforces the policy selectively—more strictly where it has leverage. This flexibility further reinforces the pattern of a most-favored-nation-type clause: applied only when beneficial to the platform.

Experts caution that such policies can raise overall retail prices. If merchants must keep pricing uniform across platforms, they lose incentive to lower prices anywhere, undermining healthy competition. Liu Xu argues that regulators should curb both irrational price wars and anti-competitive restrictions on pricing freedom, ensuring that consumers and small merchants retain fair market rights.

While JD is entitled to set platform rules, excessively punitive or restrictive measures may cross into unfair competition. Fines of millions of yuan are disproportionate to merchants’ profits and exceed the severity of penalties typically imposed by government authorities under the Antimonopoly Law. As Professor Yin Jiguo of South China University of Technology notes, when platforms use their rule-making authority and algorithmic monitoring to force “compliance,” they effectively wield private power greater than public regulation. Such “rule abuse,” he says, can distort fair trade and stifle business autonomy.

Under China’s E-Commerce Law and Interim Regulations on Online Unfair Competition, merchants have the right to report such conduct to the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). They may also pursue civil action to overturn penalties and recover losses.

On August 23, 2025, the National Development and Reform Commission, SAMR, and Cyberspace Administration jointly issued a draft Internet Platform Pricing Behavior Regulation. The proposed Article 5 explicitly prohibits platforms from forcing or indirectly forcing merchants to lower prices, requiring merchants to keep prices on one platform below others, or using automated repricing tools to enforce control. These guidelines reflect regulators’ intent to update enforcement tools for the platform economy’s evolving complexity.

JD.com’s Double 11 price-control controversy highlights a defining challenge of China’s digital economy: balancing innovation with fair competition. As e-commerce enters a new phase of maturity, platforms, merchants, and regulators alike must navigate this balance carefully. Sustainable growth will depend not on aggressive rule enforcement, but on transparent pricing, fair competition, and legal accountability within a modernized governance framework. As the digital economy continues to evolve, laws and regulations must keep pace. The future of e-commerce will rest on fairness, innovation, and trust—ensuring a competitive yet sustainable market for all.