[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the platform's forcing merchants to choose between two options may constitute a violation of the law. If the platform holds a dominant market position and unreasonably restricts trading partners from conducting transactions with other platforms, it may constitute a market-dominating act of restricting transactions, which violates the Anti-Monopoly Law. Even if it does not hold a dominant position, implementing actions such as "choosing between two options" may also violate the provisions of the E-commerce Law regarding the prohibition of abusing a dominant position and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law regarding the prohibition of engaging in unfair competition. To determine whether it is illegal, it is necessary to comprehensively evaluate the platform's market position, behavioral methods, duration, and competitive impact, rather than making a general judgment.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

On e-commerce, takeout, and lifestyle service platforms, merchants are often required to "choose one or the other": either operate on the current platform or exit other platforms, otherwise they may face traffic restrictions, ranking penalties, or even being delisted. Whether this practice is illegal and whether merchants can protect their rights have become the focus of attention. Platforms often implement these practices under the guise of "cooperation agreements" and "resource swaps", while merchants face traffic and survival pressures. The disputes involve multiple legal aspects such as monopoly and unfair competition, which require specific analysis.

II. Key points of contention

First, whether the platform holds a dominant market position and how the relevant market should be defined. Second, whether the behavior constitutes an unjustified restriction of transactions. Third, the extent of the impact on market competition and merchants' interests. Fourth, when the platform does not hold a dominant position, whether the behavior violates the E-commerce Law or the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Fifth, the remedies available to merchants and the burden of proof.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

When handling "two-choice" disputes, lawyers typically focus on three aspects: market position, nature of the behavior, and remedial pathways. First, market definition and dominance: To determine whether the behavior is illegal, it is often necessary to first define the relevant market and evaluate the platform's market share, control, and entry barriers. If the platform holds a dominant position, the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law prohibiting the abuse of market dominance apply. Second, nature of the behavior: Restricting trading partners to transact only with the platform or prohibiting them from transacting with other platforms without legitimate justification may constitute a limitation on trade in violation of market dominance. Even if the platform does not hold a dominant position, abusing its advantageous position or employing unfair competition methods to implement the "two-choice" policy may also be illegal. Third, legitimate justification: The platform may provide evidence to demonstrate that its actions serve to improve efficiency or protect consumer interests, but such justifications must be sufficiently substantiated. Fourth, remedial pathways: Merchants may report the case to regulatory authorities or file civil lawsuits under the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, or the E-commerce Law to seek cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. Fifth, evidence collection: Merchants should ensure to preserve evidence such as the platform's rules, notifications, chat records, and traffic changes to form a complete chain of evidence. Specific determinations should be made based on the specific circumstances of the case and operational evidence.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

First, save the notifications, rules, chat records, traffic data, order changes, and other evidence required by the platform for a two-choice decision; Second, evaluate the platform's market position and behavioral impact to determine the applicable anti-monopoly or anti-unfair competition path; Third, report the situation to the market supervision and management department and request an investigation; Fourth, if no agreement can be reached, file a lawsuit to demand cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. For matters involving contract clause review, legal action can be taken through legal channels.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesI understand the service. For issues related to intellectual property and competition, you can refer to the relevant materials for further reference.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor specific services, you can refer to the following for more information.Special servicesFor matters involving the enforcement of compensation, you can refer to the following for more information.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementThe main basis can be referred to the relevant provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the E-commerce Law. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws and regulations and judicial rulings. In complex situations, it can be resolved throughLegal ConsultationJudgment.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

Three sentences to choose from two options: If a company has a dominant market position and restricts transactions without a legitimate reason, it may constitute a monopoly violation; even if the company does not have a dominant position, it may still violate the E-commerce Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; preserving evidence of platform rules and traffic changes is key to protecting rights. For issues involving contracts and competition, legal action can be taken through the following channels:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesYou can refer to the overall solution for services involving intellectual property and competitionIntellectual property protection and corporate lawFor reference, you can refer to the assessment of litigation strategiesSpecial services.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it illegal for the platform to force users to choose between two options?

This might be illegal. If the platform holds a dominant position and restricts transactions without a legitimate reason, it may constitute an abuse of market dominance; even if the platform does not hold a dominant position, its actions may still violate the e-commerce law and the anti-unfair competition law.

Q2: How to determine whether a platform holds a dominant market position?

First, it is necessary to define the relevant market, and then comprehensively evaluate the platform's market share, control power, entry barriers, and degree of transaction dependence, which are usually determined by regulatory authorities or courts in individual cases.

Q3: What can merchants do about it?

You can save evidence such as platform notifications, rules, and traffic changes, report them to the market supervision and management department, or file a civil lawsuit under the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to demand the cessation of infringement and compensation.

Q4: What evidence is required?

It includes notifications and rules requiring platforms to choose one of two options, chat records, changes in traffic and orders, traces of being limited in flow and penalized, as well as materials related to market position and competitive impact.

Q5: How can I protect my rights?

First, secure the evidence and evaluate the legal options. You can choose to pursue both administrative reporting and civil litigation simultaneously. If negotiations fail, consult a lawyer promptly and initiate legal action, paying attention to the statute of limitations and the burden of proof for damages.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication standards in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Business and commercial legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.