侵害消费者低价利益型竞争损害的误读与澄清——由《〈反垄断法〉修正草案》第17条第二款引发的理论思考  

Myths about Injury to Consumers Low Price Interest as a Competitive Harm:a Reflection on Article 17(2) of the Amendment Bill of Chinas Antimonopoly Law

作　　者：兰磊[1] Lan Lei

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学知识产权学院

出　　处：《竞争政策研究》2022年第3期43-59,共17页Competition Policy Research

摘　　要：对RPM持反对意见的论者经常以消费者享有低价利益而RPM损害此利益作为论据。但低价利益的含义模糊,论者使用的比较基准通常不具有可行性或可操作性,无法据此评估消费者的低价利益是否受损。即便承认消费者享有低价利益,也不意味着RPM因为损害此利益就构成损害消费者利益。消费者利益是一个综合概念。消费者具有多样化的正当需求,商品的价值取决于其综合满足这些需求的能力。消费者在评价商品的价值时综合考量价格要素和非价格要素。商品涨价可能伴随需求量的增长以及生产商利润的增加。这说明消费者未必认为价格上涨和生产商利润增加损害其利益。低价利益说的本质是否定非价格利益的正当性。这种态度不利于我国促进产业和消费结构“双升级”的政策实施。Arguments against resale price maintenance(RPM) typically take as support that consumers enjoy a low-price interest and RPM injures it. However, low-price interest is ambiguous in that benchmarks used are inviable or inadministrable;therefore, its infeasible to judge whether consumers low-price interest is injured on the basis of such benchmarks. Even if it is accepted that consumers enjoy a low-price interest, it does not follow that RPM injures consumers interests merely because it injures such low-price interest. “Consumer interests” is a comprehensive concept. Consumers have diversified legitimate needs, and the consumer value of a product depends on its capacity to satisfy such needs. When evaluating a products value, consumers consider nonprice elements as well as price elements. Resale price increase of a manufacturers product may accompany increases in demand for this product and in this manufacturers profits, which means that consumers dont necessarily consider price increases and manufacturers profits as harmful to their interests. The argument of low-price interest effectively denies the legitimacy of nonprice interests. This view is harmful to the implementation of Chinas current policies of upgrading both consumption and industrial structure.

关 键 词：垄断协议 转售价格维持 消费者利益 消费者价值 

分 类 号：D923.8[政治法律—民商法学]