When you struggle to snap up concert tickets, have you ever been attracted by claims like "90% success rate" or "a thousand-person team to grab tickets" and turned to so-called "ticket-broking tools"? On the afternoon of March 24, 2025, the Beijing Internet Court heard and rendered an on-the-spot judgment in the case of Company A v. Company B and Gao Moumou regarding online unfair competition and false publicity. The court ordered compensation of 375,300 yuan, drawing a clear legal redline for the booming ticket-broking market.
I. Case Background: Renowned Ticket Platform Targeted by Technical Ticket Snatching
The plaintiff, Company A, is the operator of a well-known ticket platform famous for its fair and impartial ticketing system. The defendant, Company B, runs a ticket-broking platform that claims to be "China’s first professional ticket-broking platform dedicated to solving the problem of low success rates". It organized merchants on its platform to snatch tickets through technical means, disrupting the normal order of the ticketing market.
Company A argued that Company B’s platform instigated and participated in unfair ticket snatching via technical tools against its platform, violating Article 13(2)(iv) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China. Meanwhile, Company B’s claims of "90% success rate" and "five thousand-person teams grabbing tickets at once" constituted false publicity, violating Article 9(1) of the same law.
II. Court Hearing: Public Trial with On-the-Spot Judgment
The case was heard publicly at the Lize Circuit Trial Station of the Beijing International Legal and Business Integration Demonstration Zone. More than 20 people attended the hearing, including municipal people’s congress representatives, municipal political consultative conference members, enterprise representatives of the demonstration zone, and judicial staff of the Beijing Internet Court.
After court investigation and debate, the Beijing Internet Court issued a first-instance judgment on the spot, demonstrating high efficiency and professionalism in internet case trials.
III. Judicial Findings: Technical Ticket Snatching & False Publicity Constitute Unfair Competition
The Beijing Internet Court ruled as follows:
-
Technical ticket snatching constitutes unfair competition
Merchants on Company B’s platform used technical methods to unfairly snatch tickets from Company A’s platform. Company B clearly knew that merchants would conduct such unfair acts to meet the success rate requirements, yet it still released ticket-snatching information related to Company A’s platform and listed it as an optional target in the broking process. Subjectively, it intended to hinder the normal operation of Company A’s platform; objectively, it collaborated with brokers in unfair ticket snatching, disrupting the platform’s order and constituting online unfair competition.
-
"90% success rate" constitutes false publicity
The claimed success rate lacked factual basis and easily misled consumers into trusting Company B’s ticket-snatching ability and choosing its broking service instead of purchasing directly from formal platforms like Company A. This behavior deprived legitimate operators of trading opportunities and harmed fair market competition, violating Article 9(1) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
IV. Judgment: Cease Infringement & Pay ¥375,300 in Compensation
The Beijing Internet Court rendered the following first-instance judgment:
-
The defendant Company B shall immediately stop the involved unfair competition acts;
-
Company B shall compensate Company A 300,000 yuan for economic losses and 75,300 yuan for reasonable expenses, totaling 375,300 yuan;
-
Gao Moumou shall bear joint and several liability for Company B’s compensation obligation.
The case is still within the appeal period, and the first-instance judgment has not yet taken effect.
V. Case Significance: A Landmark Ruling for the Ticketing Market
As the first internet-related unfair competition case heard at the Lize Circuit Trial Station, this case sets multiple benchmarks:
-
For the industry: It clarifies the business boundaries of ticket-broking platforms. Technical ticket snatching and false success rate claims both constitute unfair competition, drawing a redline for lawful operation.
-
For platforms: It warns that technical advantages cannot excuse unfair competition, and "success rate" claims must be supported by facts.
-
For the judiciary: It showcases professional internet trial services and contributes to building Beijing’s legal and business integration demonstration model.
VI. Compliance Warning: Legal Risks of Ticket-Broking Business
This case reveals three major legal risks of ticket-broking services:
-
Technical risks: Using crawlers, scripts or other tools to snatch tickets disrupts platform operations and violates the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
-
Publicity risks: Exaggerating success rates or fabricating team scale misleads consumers and may lead to civil compensation or administrative penalties.
-
Liability risks: Platform operators may bear joint and several liability with merchants and individuals who commit infringement.
Conclusion
From claiming to be "China’s first ticket-broking platform" to paying 375,300 yuan in compensation, Company B’s case sends a clear warning: technological innovation must serve fair competition, and no business model should be built on undermarding others’ legitimate operations.
The judgment issued by the Beijing Internet Court on March 24, 2025 not only upheld Company A’s rights but also protected consumers’ right to fair ticket purchasing. In the booming performance economy, only by returning technology to its instrumental nature and competition to the rule of law can every ticket carry genuine expectations rather than technical arbitrage.
Data Source: Sailixin Intellectual Property Research Institute
