China's New Wave of Antitrust Measures Amid Intensifying US-China Economic Tensions
- kenzieguo
- Feb 25
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 26
With the economic rivalry between US and China escalating under the Trump administration, China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has ramped up antitrust oversight against American companies in the country, particularly in the digital economy and high-tech sectors. From late 2024 to early 2025, SAMR has launched investigations against Google and Nvidia for alleged monopolistic practices, and media reports indicate that Apple is next.
The Regulators and their Standard Investigation Processes
China's primary antitrust regulator is the Anti-Monopoly Bureau (AMB), which is under SAMR. The AMB, established in November 2021, integrates the antitrust functions previously held by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Ministry of Commerce, and the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC).
The core responsibility of AMB is to prevent monopolistic behavior, maintain market competition, and promote high-quality economic development. The Bureau’s specific responsibilities include:
Merger Reviews: Assessing whether mergers and acquisitions create market monopolies (e.g. Nvidia's acquisition of Mellanox).
Abuse of Dominance Investigations: Targeting practices like tying, discriminatory pricing, and other anti-competitive behaviors (e.g. Apple's App Store commission policies).
Administrative Monopoly Regulation: Overseeing monopolistic practices by local governments or trade associations.
From 2023 to 2024, the AMB investigated 38 cases involving monopoly agreements and abuse of market dominance. An antitrust case typically takes between 30 and 180 days to be reviewed, investigated, and deliberated. The process is primarily driven by the AMB, and the final decision will be made by top-level government.
Case filing and preliminary examination: Mainly include reporting (complaints from competitors or consumers), active detection (e.g. abnormal fluctuations in market share), and international collaboration. For example, the investigation of Nvidia originated from a customer's report of bundled sales of GPUs with Mellanox devices.
Evidence Collection and Hearings: The AMB may request internal documents, contracts, and financial data. Third parties, such as industry associations and academic institutions, often provide expert analysis. For example, the China Semiconductor Association assessed Nvidia’s market position, and experts criticized Apple’s 30% App Store commission as excessive compared to local competitors like Huawei (15%).
Decisions and Penalties: If violations are confirmed, penalties may include fines, business divestitures, or behavioral remedies. A notable example is Qualcomm’s 2015 fine of USD 975 million for antitrust violations in China.
Corporate Response - Self-Correction and Third-Party Collaboration
Nvidia and Google, which are currently under investigation, both maintain significant operations in China. Nvidia has been in the Chinese market for 25 years and currently employs nearly 4,000 local staff across various divisions. Google has established offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, with main businesses in China including advertising, cloud computing, and AI research. Its Android operating system is widely used in the Chinese mobile phone market.
To mitigate the impact on their business operations in China, relevant companies should promptly respond to antitrust investigations. Specific measures include:
Self-inspection and Correction: Companies could proactively submit compliance reports to demonstrate the rectification of monopolistic practices (e.g. adjusting pricing or unbundling products).
Third-party Involvement: Companies may seek assistance from legal advisors or consulting firms, in responding to the investigation procedures and formulating defense strategies, as well as providing market definition, competitive impact analysis, etc. For example, Qualcomm engaged renowned legal experts to participate in negotiations during China’s antitrust investigations in 2013.
Conclusion
The outcomes of antitrust investigations often hinge on a company’s cooperation with the local Chinese authorities and compliance efforts. For example, Microsoft (China) avoided severe penalties in 2020 by opening its API interfaces and collaborating with local firms. In contrast, Qualcomm was fined 8% of its annual sales in China (about USD 975 million) in 2015 for refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
China's antitrust regulation has shifted from “after-the-fact penalties” to “before-the-fact prevention,” and companies need to establish a dynamic compliance system and regularly evaluate their business models. For multinational companies operating in China, being updated with the policies, understanding the logic of the regulatory measures, proactively making changes, and planning for contingencies will be key to a sustainable and continuous development in the country. Seeking assistance from third parties, such as Grapevine Asia Partners, is an effective and efficient way of dealing with the everchanging business environment in China.
References:
Grapevine Asia Partners is a boutique risk consultancy established by a team of skilled corporate-intelligence research analysts and anti-fraud experts, who collectively have decades of experience in Asia, particularly in Greater China and Southeast Asia. Our firm actively monitors policy changes and regulatory investigations involving multinational companies. Aside from collecting, interpreting, and analyzing up-to-date information from credible sources, Grapevine Asia also supports clients in liaising with law enforcement and regulatory agencies to facilitate case resolution. We have extensive experience in dealing with law enforcement, particularly on matters involving embezzlement, private sector bribery, trade secrets theft, and intellectual property infringement.
Comments