评价劫持行为的反不正当竞争法规制
Regulation of Review Hijacking under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law
摘要: 在线评价体系作为缓解数字交易信息不对称的核心信用机制,正面临“评价劫持”行为的挑战。评价劫持行为通过切断评价与商品的真实关联,实质上扭曲了市场竞争的信息基础。当前,我国《反不正当竞争法》针对评价劫持的规制面临法律适用标准模糊、技术隐蔽性导致监管阻碍、平台责任落实不到位以及消费者救济渠道缺失等现实困境。为破解上述困境,应构建系统化规制路径,明确《反不正当竞争法》的规范适用,将评价劫持纳入虚假宣传与数据保护条款规制范畴;推动监管执法向数字化、协同化转型以提升效能;强化平台在规则制定与技术监测中的责任,并健全消费者集体诉讼机制以完善救济路径,最终通过法治规制、技术理性与平台治理的深度融合,筑牢数字经济公平竞争的制度根基。
Abstract: Online review systems, as the core credit mechanism for alleviating information asymmetry in digital transactions, are facing unprecedented challenges posed by review hijacking practices. By severing the genuine nexus between consumer reviews and the corresponding goods or services, review hijacking essentially distorts the informational foundation of market competition. Currently, the regulation of review hijacking under China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law confronts multiple practical dilemmas: ambiguous standards for legal application, regulatory impediments resulting from technological concealment, inadequate enforcement of platform obligations, and the absence of effective consumer remedy channels. To resolve these predicaments, a systematic regulatory framework should be constructed. Specifically, we need to clarify the applicability of Anti-Unfair Competition Law provisions by incorporating review hijacking into the regulatory scope of both false advertising and data protection clauses; advance the digital and collaborative transformation of regulatory enforcement to improve efficiency; strengthen platform responsibilities in rule formulation and technical monitoring; and refine the consumer class action mechanism to enhance remedy access. Ultimately, through the profound integration of rule-of-law regulation, technological rationality and platform governance, we can solidify the institutional foundation for fair competition in the digital economy.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
Federal Trade Commission (2023) FTC Charges Supplement Marketer with Hijacking Ratings and Reviews on Amazon.com and Using Them to Deceive Consumers. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/ftc-charges-supplement-marketer-hijacking-ratings-reviews-amazoncom-using-them-deceive-consumers
|
|
[2]
|
李鑫. 电商平台中“评论劫持”的违法性分析与法律治理路径[J]. 经济法论丛, 2024, 43(1): 236-257.
|
|
[3]
|
邹开亮, 徐培杰, 曾文琴. 试论评价劫持的反不正当竞争规制困阻与纾解路径——写于《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法(修订草案)》公开征求意见之际[J/OL]. 价格理论与实践: 1-6. 2026-04-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[4]
|
蒋舸.《反不正当竞争法》网络条款的反思与解释 以类型化原理为中心[J]. 中外法学, 2019, 31(1): 180-202.
|
|
[5]
|
张占江. 不正当竞争行为认定范式的嬗变 从“保护竞争者”到“保护竞争” [J]. 中外法学, 2019, 31(1): 203-223.
|
|
[6]
|
张浩然. 三元叠加目标下不正当竞争行为评判体系的一体化建构[J]. 政法论坛, 2025, 43(1): 156-167.
|
|
[7]
|
孙晋, 聂童. 电商平台自治权滥用的分权化治理——基于平台内经营主体权益保护的视角[J]. 河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2026, 51(2): 129-140.
|
|
[8]
|
安海媛, 李文立, 于亚鹤, 等. 考虑默认好评规则的在线评论偏差研究[J]. 系统管理学报, 2026, 35(1): 114-126.
|
|
[9]
|
刘维, 陈鹏宇. 论数字时代反不正当竞争法中的消费者利益[J]. 知识产权, 2023(7): 90-109.
|
|
[10]
|
刘权. 网络平台的公共性及其实现——以电商平台的法律规制为视角[J]. 法学研究, 2020, 42(2): 42-56.
|
|
[11]
|
新华网. 淘宝推出“真实体验分”商家信用评价体系重大更新[EB/OL]. 2025-04-16. http://www.news.cn/tech/20250416/766da2ef557541049bb173657f546167/c.html, 2026-04-10.
|
|
[12]
|
陈耿华. 互联网新型不正当竞争行为规制理念的实证考察及比较分析[J]. 广东财经大学学报, 2017, 32(5): 102-112.
|