Miao Chong v. SAIC-GM: The Dawn of the Private Enforcement of Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law?

Global antitrust experiences have demonstrated that plaintiffs are frequently faced with evidentiary difficulties in the private enforcement of competition law, and China is no exception. In Miao Chong v. SAIC-GM, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of China, for the first time ever, affirmed the presumption of the truthfulness of the facts established in antitrust infringement decisions in the private enforcement of competition law, which is believed to relieve the plaintiff’s burden of proof in establishing damages claims. However, the Miao Chong ruling should not be overstated because the application of this presumption must be combined with the judge’s investigative power to collect evidence, which is also subject to certain strict conditions. In fact, the plaintiff’s weak evidentiary position in the private enforcement of competition law lies in the de facto inequality of power and resources between parties. This is demonstrated by the fact that most plaintiffs are individuals who also lack effective evidentiary systems. To elevate the plaintiff’s footing in the private enforcement of Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (ALM), this article proposes changes to the existing presumptions of harm and substantive legal tests, with the aim of reducing the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden and better assisting them in defending their compensation claims.