Mobile phone manufacturers frequently block third-party app downloads! Fair competition needs to be maintained and consumer rights need to be protected
2024-08-25
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
This article is reprinted from [Legal Daily];
With the continuous advancement of mobile Internet technology, smartphones have been deeply integrated into the daily lives of modern people and have become an important tool for socializing, shopping, entertainment and information acquisition. To be more precise, it is the various application software (APP) installed in smartphones that play these specific functions. Therefore, for users, the importance of application software is far greater than the phone itself. According to online data statistics, the Android system currently has the highest proportion of smartphones used in my country. There are two main sources of application software downloads for this system: one is the application store that comes with the mobile phone brand, and the other is the software download service provided by a third party outside the mobile phone brand, that is, the so-called third-party application store, such as Wandoujia, 360 Mobile Assistant, Tencent App Treasure, Baidu Mobile Assistant, etc.
Although there is more than one channel for downloading Android apps, many consumers have more or less encountered the following scenarios when using third-party app stores to download and install apps in their daily lives:
Scenario 1: Frequent pop-up windows to allow installation or risk warnings
When software is downloaded from a third-party app store, before entering the system installation page, the phone frequently pops up windows asking whether to allow the software to be installed, or pops up windows to warn of risks, including words such as "stuttering", "unregistered", and "induced downloads" that may cause consumers to panic. When consumers download and install apps from the same third-party app store multiple times, "frequent installation reminders" will be triggered, requiring users to complete additional verification operations.
Scenario 2: Long-term risk detection and redirection to recommended similar applications
Software downloaded from third-party app stores will be "scanned" or "risk monitored" for a long time. During this period, the software operation buttons will be grayed out and cannot be clicked, and there is no way to skip the scan or cancel the installation. At the same time, the words "You may also like" will appear on the system installation page, recommending application software with similar functions to the brand's application market, and guiding users to jump to the application market of the mobile phone brand.
Scenario 3: User authorization or password verification required in safe mode
When consumers download software from third-party app stores in safe mode, the phone will repeatedly require the user to authorize and enter the power-on password, system password or identity information, and may even require a series of tedious operations such as SMS verification before the download can be completed. What's more, in some cases, after turning on the enhanced mode of security protection, apps downloaded from third-party app stores will be directly judged as risky and forced to jump directly to the same or similar software download and installation page of the mobile phone manufacturer's app store.
The above-mentioned situations have been reported by many media such as Legal Daily and Computer News, showing that this has become a common problem in application software consumption. Because of the above-mentioned situations, consumers often end up choosing to download apps from the mobile phone brand's own app store for security reasons or convenience reasons. According to data from Legal Daily reprinted by People's Daily Online, in 2015, 58.7% of users used third-party app stores as their main application download channel, and 22.3% used the mobile phone brand's own app store as their main channel. Affected by similar prompts or verifications, a few years later, the usage rate of third-party app stores and mobile phone brand's own app stores has shown a clear trend of increasing and decreasing, and the proportion of users switching from third parties to manufacturers' built-in app stores has reached as high as 37.6%.
In order to further increase attention and research on the chaos in the mobile application software download market, maintain fair competition in the market, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Foundation recently invited corporate representatives, experts in the field of administrative law enforcement, think tank scholars, legal experts, etc. to hold a seminar on issues related to fair competition in the mobile application software market and consumer rights protection. The seminar discussed the impact of mobile phone manufacturers' blocking of third-party application downloads on the market environment, consumer experience, and industry development.
At the meeting, some experts believed that the behavior of hindering the download or access of third-party app store software, inserting diversion links, and forcing target jumps by setting multiple operation steps, prompts, options, etc., which violate the user's wishes and right of choice, increase the complexity of operations, and disrupt the continuity of use, violates the relevant provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and is a very typical act of using technical means to engage in unfair competition.
Some experts also believe that the restrictions imposed by mobile phone manufacturers on third-party software download channels have affected the healthy development of the socialist market economy and seriously hindered technological innovation and progress. Experts pointed out that a fair market environment is conducive to healthy competition, and many technological innovations and developments are derived from competition. The use of unconventional competition methods such as risk warnings and security verification has squeezed the survival and profit space of third-party software providers, and in disguised form hindered their enthusiasm and motivation for innovation. This will not only affect and distort the healthy development of the market economy, but will also objectively lead to a slowdown in technological innovation and development, resulting in a decline in the activity of the mobile phone software market, and thus the choice of users to obtain more abundant application software will be reduced accordingly, ultimately affecting the consumer experience.
Some experts also believe that Article 11, Item 3 of the Interim Provisions on Anti-Unfair Competition on the Internet clearly states that: Operators shall not use the Internet to disseminate risk warnings containing false or misleading information. If there is no obvious difference in security between third-party application stores and application stores that come with mobile phone brands, and mobile phone manufacturers have issued security risk warnings, their behavior to a certain extent constitutes a negative evaluation of the security of third-party application markets, and the evaluation standards and rules are not objective and reasonable. At the same time, because the application software markets that come with mobile phone manufacturers and third-party application markets both provide APP download services, they are in the same industry competition in this field. The above-mentioned objective and unreasonable evaluations have a negative impact on the reputation of competitors and may constitute commercial defamation.
In addition, some experts have suggested that interception is essentially a form of traffic hijacking. The current mobile APP download market is essentially a traffic economy market, and its revenue is directly linked to the number of users and the amount of software downloads. Therefore, the main purpose of mobile phone manufacturers' interception of APP downloads and installations from third-party application stores is to divert traffic, that is, traffic hijacking. Consumers turn to the brand's own store due to improper interception or cumbersome operations. From a formal point of view, it is the user who triggers the jump through the operation. But in fact, it may be the result of improper interference in a way that infringes on the user's right to know about the security of the software or increases the cumbersomeness of the operation. This result violates the user's free will and makes him act contrary to his original decision, and ultimately forced to compromise so that the mobile phone manufacturer can achieve the purpose of traffic hijacking.
In this regard, the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Foundation believes that:
one,Mobile phone root permissions should not be used as a technical means of competition
From the technical point of view, the root permissions of the system can read, write, modify and other operations on the mobile phone system files or settings, which are also called super user permissions. They are an important factor affecting the safe and stable operation of the mobile phone system. Therefore, there is no problem that the root permissions cannot be opened to third parties at will. However, at the same time, manufacturers as system providers cannot use the "root permissions" in their hands to impose unreasonable restrictions on software from other channels, thereby "weaponizing" them as a means of competition. If this permission is used as a means of competition, it will not only hinder the fairness of competition in the application software market and technological development, but will also ultimately hinder consumers' diverse choice needs and affect consumer experience.
two,Competition behavior shall not harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators
From the perspective of market competition, the download and use of application software is essentially a kind of service consumption. Mobile phone manufacturers and third-party application providers are both service providers. The status of both parties in the market should be equal, and the rights and obligations they enjoy in the process of providing services to consumers should also be the same. In other words, out of consideration for consumer information security, it is reasonable to give safety tips to reduce risks, but the tips themselves should not appear repeatedly or be impossible to bypass, so as to avoid such competitive behavior from actually becoming a mobile phone manufacturer using its own technological advantages to set up obstacles for other operators to provide services, thereby damaging the legitimate rights and interests of other operators. This kind of prompt has played a certain role in intercepting or hindering other competitors from providing services, just like a restaurant owner installing a gate at the door of another restaurant, which is obviously contrary to the market economic order and the principle of fair competition.
three,Consumers' right to know and right to choose should be fully exercised
From the perspective of consumer rights protection, the criteria for judging the safety tips for mobile app downloads are usually not clearly stated. Consumers cannot know whether such tips are given after technical security testing or are uniform tips for non-brand app store software issued simply by identifying the download source. Therefore, consumers cannot objectively judge the true situation of the security of third-party app software and may eventually have to give up third-party channels. In fact, consumers have the right to know the true situation of the goods or services they purchase, which is the statutory right to know clearly granted to consumers by the Consumer Rights Protection Law (hereinafter referred to as the Consumer Rights Protection Law). In addition, Article 11 of the new Regulations for the Implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Law (hereinafter referred to as the Implementation Regulations) also clearly stipulates that operators shall not use technical means to force or covertly force consumers to accept services and restrict consumers' independent choices. The safety tips with unclear standards convey the information that "mobile app software from other channels has security risks" in disguise, which may mislead or affect consumers' choices, making it impossible to fully exercise the right of choice granted by the Consumer Rights Protection Law and the Implementation Regulations.
In summary, in order to better ensure fair competition in the mobile application software market and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, we call on relevant departments to pay further attention to the various phenomena and problems in the current application software downloads, clarify the responsible parties for APP security review, and bring consumers a consumption environment and consumption experience with a greater sense of gain, satisfaction, and happiness.
Source: Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Foundation
