最新资讯
dev.to 我们在 DolphinBench 上测试记忆检索:纯关键词搜索暴露了自身回归 dev.to 别再把 Agent 写成 while 循环,把它建模为状态机 bloomberg.com Rightmove 与 Scout24 借 AI 产品应对低迷房市并上调展望 stackoverflow.blog 欢迎来到芯片时代:半导体制造、AI 数据中心与芯片设计的未来 www.youtube.com AI Agent 总犯同样的错:CentralAgent AI 将记忆重构为经验系统 pub.towardsai.net Netflix 科学家建议重采样 LLM 评判:5 次仅将误差棒缩小 13% pub.towardsai.net Jev 作为 LLM 前的静默层:构建提示感知的模型路由器 reddit.com OpenAI 称 Astra 仅满足 10% 安全任务标准 dev.to FreeToken:在自有 GPU 上运行前沿 MoE 模型及其内存需求 dev.to 当 AI Agent 说“完成”时,究竟完成了什么? dev.to 部署 Underdog Bark 3.0 Pro:逐字转写、自定义后端与分块设置 dev.to 为艰难对话构建 AI:五个 Agent、一条安全正则与一位盲评监督者
多元动态
登录 注册
行业动态 www.aibase.com ·

最高法发布反不正当竞争典型案例,AI与直播电商成焦点

原文 我的收藏

最高人民法院于2026年9月9日发布9件反不正当竞争典型案例,其中涉及利用AI技术批量生成虚假评论、直播电商篡改商品链接等行为。案例五中,销售抢单物理外挂的公司被判赔偿300万元,明确了技术手段干扰平台算法的行为构成不正当竞争。

AI推荐理由 报道了最高法发布的涉及AI和直播电商的反不正当竞争典型案例,具有法律和产业参考价值,但内容为案例摘要,缺乏深度分析。

65

正文

Judgment for 3 million yuan in compensation for using physical plugins to grab orders: The Supreme People's Court released 9 typical cases of anti-unfair competition, with AI and live streaming e-commerce as key focuses AIbase基地 Published inAI News · 5 min read · Sep 9, 2026 7 The Supreme People's Court released on September 9, 2026, nine typical cases of unfair competition in people's courts. Among them, Case Five involves providing "physical cheats" for order grabbing, which disrupts the fair competition order of the platform and has exemplary significance for the healthy and standardized development of the platform economy. A "Tap-and-Swipe Device" Sold for Millions, Ordered to Pay 3 Million In this case, three companies are the operators of a food delivery platform and a crowdsourcing platform. Starting from 2024, the three companies received numerous complaints about riders using cheat devices to grab orders. Investigations found that an electronics company sold a product called "Tap-and-Swipe Device" on e-commerce platforms and published tutorials guiding riders to connect the device with the platform App, enabling automatic and rapid order grabbing through preset commands, which is much faster than manual operation. The product had sales of millions of yuan. The Huangpu District People's Court of Guangzhou City ruled in the first instance that the "Tap-and-Swipe Device" circumvented the platform's operational rules through technical means, interfered with the normal operation of the scheduling algorithm, caused the order allocation mechanism to fail, and substantially hindered the platform's normal business operations. At the same time, riders using the product could seize high-quality orders first, breaking the fair competition ecology among riders, directly reducing the order acquisition opportunities for compliant riders; illegal order grabbing also easily led to order cancellations and delivery delays, harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and platform merchants. The court thus ordered the electronics company to compensate 3 million yuan, and the first-instance judgment has taken effect. AI-Generated Fake Reviews and Live Streaming Product Link Tampering Both Highlighted The nine cases released this time cover legal issues such as imitation confusion, infringement of trade secrets, commercial defamation, false advertising, and online unfair competition. In Case Three, it was clearly stated that maliciously "reconstructing code" to systematically replace the core functions of others' network products and embed them into their own services for profit constitutes unfair competition. In Case Six, it was pointed out that using AI technology to mass-produce and publish fabricated reviews targeting others' products for traffic diversion constitutes unfair competition. In Case Seven, it was determined that live-stream e-commerce using technical means to alter recommended products in competitors' live-stream shopping videos and mislead consumers constitutes false advertising. In Case Eight, it was clarified that competing operators who maliciously edit and splice review videos to defame the performance of competitors' products constitute commercial defamation. In Case Nine, it was determined that in comparative advertisements, publishing negative evaluations without professional support and allowing consumers to identify the source of the compared products constitutes commercial defamation. The Supreme People's Court stated that in the next step, it will continue to strengthen the trial work against unfair competition, improve the rules for competition adjudication, and provide judicial guarantees for accelerating the construction of a unified national market. ClickerAnti-Unfair CompetitionPlatform EconomyAI Plugin This article is from AIbase Daily Scan to view Welcome to the [AI Daily] column! This is your daily guide to exploring the world of artificial intelligence. Every day, we present you with hot topics in the AI field, focusing on developers, helping you understand technical trends, and learning about innovative AI product applications. —— Created by the AIbase Daily Team © Copyright AIbase Base 2024, Click to View Source -

来源报道 · 1 篇 · 以下链接均前往原始媒体

← 返回精选动态 原文

更多内容