互联网广告屏蔽行为及规制路径研究
沈钧儒法学院, 杭州师范大学, 中国(Shen Junru School of Law, Hangzhou Normal University,China)
Abstract
互联网广告屏蔽行为法律定性问题一直颇具争议，司法实践倾向于将其认定为不正当竞争行为，理论界则更多以技术中立、消费者利益保护、技术创新等理据对此提出质疑。双方立场差异折射出对利益保护的不同侧重。然而，广告屏蔽行为是市场竞争的自然产物，抛开经济效益空谈性质似乎有不妥。借鉴经济学分析的框架，从社会总福利的视角分析其利弊。最终得到若放开广告屏蔽行为则有碍于社会总福利的结论，因此就该行为本身具有可规制性。值得注意的是，法律规制并非否定评价，广告屏蔽行为的潜在正向作用也有受到法律的保护和引导的必要。在技术革新和产业升级的推动下，互联网广告屏蔽行为有望惠及社会总福利。
The legal characterization of online advertisement blocking has long been a subject of controversy. In China, courts generally classify such behavior as an act of unfair competition, whereas academic circles frequently challenge this view, citing technological neutrality, consumer protection, and the benefits of innovation. These differing positions reflect various priorities in protecting competing interests. However, ad-blocking is a natural outcome of market competition. It is inappropriate to discuss its legal nature without considering economic implications. By using an economic analytical framework, this study evaluates the pros and cons of ad-blocking in terms of social welfare. The findings suggest that unrestricted ad-blocking may hinder social welfare, which justifies regulatory intervention. Legal regulation, however, should not be equated with a negative evaluation. Ad-blocking can have beneficial effects that deserve legal protection and guidance. With technological progress and industry upgrades, online advertisement blocking may ultimately promote social welfare.
Keywords:
不正当竞争; 广告屏蔽软件; 消费者利益; 社会总福利; unfair competition; ad-blocking software; consumer interests; social welfareCopyright Notice & License:
All articles published in Journal of Law, Psychology, and Communication Studies are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits:
-
Unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium;
-
Commercial and non-commercial use;
-
Adaptation and transformation, including derivative works;
provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source, and a link to the license is included.
Authors retain full copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PDF Downloads
Journal Info
How to Cite
References
陈兵. (2019). 互联网经济下重读竞争关系”在反不正当竞争法上的意义——以京、沪、粤法院2000～2018年的相关案例为印证. 法学, (07), 18–37.
陈兵. (2021). 互联网屏蔽行为的反不正当竞争法规制. 法学, (06), 123–142.
董慧娟, & 周杰. (2014). 对浏览器过滤视频广告功能构成不正当竞争的质疑. 电子知识产权, (12), 50–57.
范长军. (2010). 德国反不正当竞争法研究. 法律出版社.
郭壬癸. (2018). 互联网视频广告屏蔽行为的竞争法规制研究. 电子知识产权, (08), 50–59.
金晓彤, & 黄蕊. (2017). 技术进步与消费需求的互动机制研究——基于供给侧改革视域下的要素配置分析. 经济学家, (02), 50–57.
李阁霞. (2018). 互联网不正当竞争行为分析——兼评〈反不正当竞争法〉中“互联网不正当竞争行为”条款. 知识产权, (02), 20–30.
梁上上. (2002). 利益的层次结构与利益衡量的展开——兼评加藤一郎的利益衡量论. 法学研究, (01), 52–65.
梁志文. (2018). 论《反不正当竞争法》下广告屏蔽软件的合法性判断. 电子知识产权, (01), 12–20.
林婧, & 陈琳. (2020). 网络广告屏蔽行为性质认定中利益衡量办法的适用改进. 法学, (04), 95–108.
刘建臣. (2015). 浏览器屏蔽网页广告行为的不正当竞争认定. 上海政法学院学报(法治论丛), (02), 88–98.
龙俊. (2021). 视频广告屏蔽类案件中不正当竞争行为认定的再思考. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), (04), 117–131.
卡尔·拉伦茨. (2003). 法学方法论（陈爱娥译）. 商务印书馆.
马腾斯, B. (2017). 线上平台经济政策面面观(上)（刁琳琳译）. 在 比较（第2辑）. 中信出版社.
覃腾英. (2018). 《反不正当竞争法》视阈下屏蔽广告行为的定性——以消费者利益保护为视角. 电子知识产权, (06), 62–71.
史欣媛. (2017). 利益衡量方法在屏蔽视频广告行为正当性判定中的适用. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 23(01), 26–33.
石必胜. (2014). 互联网竞争的非公益必要不干扰原则兼评百度诉360插标和修改搜索提示词不正当竞争纠纷案. 电子知识产权, (04), 30–37.
水志东. (2017). 互联网广告法律实务. 法律出版社.
杨明. (2021). 互联网广告屏蔽行为的效应分析及规制路径选择. 清华法学, 15(04), 176–194.
于同申. (2006). “创造性毁灭”和网络经济条件下的自主科技创新. 中国工业经济, (05), 64–71.
张广良. (2014). 具有广告过滤功能浏览器开发者的竞争法责任解析. 知识产权, (01), 8–11.
张占江. (2020). 反不正当竞争法属性的新定位：一个结构性视角. 中外法学, (01), 183–205.
周樨平. (2015). 竞争法视野中互联网不当干扰行为的判断标准——兼评“非公益必要不干扰原则”. 法学, (05), 92–104.
北京知识产权法院. (2014). 民事判决书 [(2014)京知民终字第79号].
北京知识产权法院. (2018). 民事判决书 [(2018)京73民终558号].
北京知识产权法院. (2021). 民事判决书 [(2021)京73民终683号].
北京知识产权法院. (2023). 民事判决书 [(2023)京73民终1621号].
广州知识产权法院. (2018). 民事判决书 [(2018)粤民终1022号].
最高人民法院. (2013). 民事判决书 [(2013)民终三字第5号].
Butler, I. C. (2016). The ethical and legal implications of ad-blocking software. Connecticut Law Review, 49, 689–692.
Dukes, A. J., Liu, Q., & Shuai, J. (2018). Interactive advertising: The case of skippable ads. Electronic Journal, 1–45.
Dukes, A. J., Liu, Q., & Shuai, J. (2021). Skippable ads: Interactive advertising on digital media platforms. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3169629 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3169629
Lu, B. (2017). The unique Chinese legal approach to online ad blocking: Is it in the right direction? Computer Law & Security Review, 33, 786–801.
Shiller, B., Waldfogel, J., & Ryan, J. (2017). Will ad blocking break the Internet? (NBER Working Paper No. 23058). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Walbesser, J. L. (2011). Blocking advertisement blocking: The war over internet advertising and the effect on intellectual property. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 23(1), 19–25.
eyeo. (2023). 2023 eyeo ad-filtering report. https://26760064.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/26760064/2023%20eyeo%20Ad-Filtering%20Report.pdf
Meyer, D. (2016, June 24). Major ad-blocker suffers defeat over business model. Fortune. https://fortune.com
FOX Broadcasting Co. v. DISH Network L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014).
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 461 U.S. 417 (1984).
Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009).
47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(B).
