Baidu.Com’s Case Study—Pros and Cons of Web Site Ranking Service Under Chinese Anti-monopoly Mechanism



Web site ranking service is a kind of pay-per-click (PPC) advertising offered by online search engine operators as, which is an efficient method for e-marketing in the network economy era. Besides, it also brings service providers much more profits. However, there are concerns that such Web site ranking service will create a space of commercial fraud and unfair competition, and more and more corporations will be kidnaped by this marketing mode because of the market dominant position of in the Chinese search engine service industry. Therefore, lack of legal risk management for the search engine companies in this field has made the Web site ranking service a significant source of disputes. By doing’s case study, this article explores the legal problems arising from Web site ranking service and discusses as an Internet service provider (ISP)—its legal liability under Chinese newly enforced anti-monopoly law (AML) mainly. Then, this article tries to analyze other potential legal risks of Internet business under AML as an extensive thought from the discussion beforehand. Finally, this article puts forward some resolutions aiming at protecting the fair and efficient competition environment as well as the rights and interests of all parties. With the hope to achieve three wins, this article presents its conclusion with the suggestion of more clear legislation and other feasible administrative measures.


Web site ranking service Anti-monopoly Legal risks Legal liability 


  1. Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU). 2009. Baidu announces fourth quarter and fiscal year 2008 results.
  2. China Daily. 2008. Guard against net monopoly.
  3. Chris Reed. 2004. Internet law, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95 (Published by “Proceedings of IEEE international conference on e-business engineering. 1 Oct 2009 <EI indexed>).Google Scholar
  4. CNNIC. 2009. 2008 China search engine users behavior research report. (in Chinese).
  5. D’Souza, Raissa M., Christian Borgs, Jennifer T. Chayes, Noam Berger, and Robert D. Kleinberg. 2007. Emergence of tempered preferential attachment from optimization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(15): 6112–6117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. iResearch. 2009. 2008–2009 China search engine research report. (in Chinese).
  7. Legal Daily. 2008. Baidu encounter the first case under Chinese AML. (in Chinese).
  8. Tong Hao. 2009. Baidu sued for alleged monopoly.
  9. Wikipedia. 2009. Path dependence (economics).
  10. Yongjun, Chen, and Meng Xiaoming. 2008. E-business and E-marketing, 53. Beijing: Publish House of Electronic Industry. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  11. Zhaofeng, Xue. 2008. Commerce without frontiers: The economics revolution in antitrust, 22–23. Beijing: Law Press. (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Economic Law, Law DepartmentXiamen UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations