Abstract:

In a market economy, to attract consumers and expand sales, business operators often conduct prize-attached sales. Legitimate prize-attached sales help transform potential purchasing power into actual purchasing power and play a positive role in driving a prosperous market economy. However, improper prize-attached sales behaviors either deceive or mislead consumers, infringing upon consumer rights and interests, or disrupt the fair competition order, harming the interests of industry competitors. In more severe cases, they are detrimental to fostering a healthy social ethos and, to some extent, harm national interests. This article primarily discusses the legal concept of prize-attached sales, the three statutory circumstances of improper prize-attached sales along with their judicial practice, and provides two compliance suggestions for operators conducting prize-attached sales.

Keywords: Prize-attached sales, Unfair competition, Compliance

In fierce market competition, prize-attached sales are a common commercial method used by operators. By using prize-attached sales to attract consumers, operators can stimulate consumption and invigorate market vitality. However, some operators use the guise of prize-attached sales to deceive, mislead, or improperly tempt consumers, which may disrupt the market competition mechanism, harm the legitimate rights and interests of consumers or other operators, and constitute unfair competition. Therefore, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers, encourage and protect fair competition, and promote the healthy development of the socialist market economy, it is necessary for the law to regulate prize-attached sales, and operators must ensure legality and compliance when conducting such sales.

I. What are Prize-Attached Sales

Article 2 of the “Several Provisions of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on Prohibiting Unfair Competition in Prize-Attached Sales Activities” (implemented on December 24, 1993, now abolished by the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities”) stipulated: “Prize-attached sales mentioned in these Provisions refer to the acts of operators providing goods, money, or other economic benefits incidentally to purchasers when selling goods or providing services.”

It can be seen that, legally, the determination of prize-attached sales behaviors was originally limited to “the operator’s purpose of selling goods or providing services.” However, with the booming development of the market economy, especially the internet economy, new promotional models such as “gifts upon entering the store,” “gifts upon scanning a QR code,” and “gifts upon following an account,” which are not directly linked to selling goods or providing services, have emerged. This has challenged traditional regulatory concepts, leading to doubts and disputes among regulatory authorities over whether and how to regulate them. In response to the limitations and lag of the original legal provisions, and to unify standard enforcement in judicial practice and strengthen market supervision, the Price Supervision and Anti-Unfair Competition Bureau of the State Administration for Market Regulation promulgated the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities” on November 6, 2020 (effective December 1, 2020). Among them, Article 11 stipulates: “Prize-attached sales mentioned in these Provisions refer to the behaviors of operators providing bonuses, goods, or other benefits to consumers with the aim of selling goods [1] or gaining a competitive advantage, including draw-based and gift-attached prize sales.” It is evident that, in addition to the purpose of selling goods or providing services, the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage may also constitute a prize-attached sale, such as the very typical “receive a big gift package just by sharing on WeChat Moments.” This can be further seen from Article 12: “The behaviors of operators incidentally providing goods, bonuses, or other benefits for the purposes of promoting mobile applications, soliciting customers, increasing brand awareness, acquiring traffic, increasing click-through rates, etc., belong to the prize-attached sales mentioned in these Provisions.”

In practice, prizes in prize-attached sales are varied and may be money, physical goods, service opportunities, shopping discounts, etc.; in the online world, they may also be VIP memberships, virtual currency, video playback time, virtual gaming equipment, etc. [2].

The forms of rewards in prize-attached sales are also diverse, including draw-based and gift-attached prize sales. Draw-based prize-attached sales refer to prize-attached sales behaviors where operators use methods involving chance or uncertainty, such as drawing lots, rolling numbers, or games, to determine whether consumers win a prize. Regarding this, Article 1 of the “Reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on the Determination of Draw-Based Prize-Attached Sales and Issues Concerning the Power to Interpret Specific Applications of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law” (Gong Shang Gong Zi [1998] No. 143) clearly states: “Drawing lots and rolling numbers are typical methods of draw-based prize-attached sales, but draw-based prize-attached sales are not limited to these methods. In prize-attached sales, any method that determines whether a participant wins a prize by chance belongs to draw-based prize-attached sales. A fortuitous method means an uncertain method, i.e., whether one wins is only a possibility; one may win or may not win, and winning cannot be completely controlled by the participant.” Gift-attached prize sales refer to prize-attached sales behaviors where operators provide bonuses, goods, or other benefits to consumers who meet certain conditions. Examples include receiving a gift package upon becoming a member, getting 40 RMB off for every 300 RMB spent, or restricting prizes to the first 50 consumers who place an order.

At the same time, it should be noted that prize-attached fundraising and other lottery sales activities legally approved by the government or relevant government departments are not subject to the provisions on prize-attached sales.

II. Three Statutory Circumstances of Improper Prize-Attached Sales and Their Judicial Practice

Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “An operator conducting prize-attached sales shall not engage in any of the following acts: (1) The information on the prize-attached sale, such as the types of prizes, conditions for prize redemption, prize amounts, or prize items, is unclear, affecting prize redemption; (2) Using deceptive methods to conduct prize-attached sales, such as falsely claiming there are prizes or intentionally allowing pre-designated personnel to win; (3) Conducting a draw-based prize-attached sale where the maximum prize amount exceeds 50,000 RMB.”

From the above, it can be seen that there are mainly three statutory circumstances of improper prize-attached sales: (1) Unclear prize-attached sales information, affecting prize redemption; (2) Deceptive prize-attached sales behaviors; (3) Giant prize sales [3]. In this regard, the following text will discuss each circumstance in combination with judicial practice.

(I) Unclear prize-attached sales information, affecting prize redemption

In practice, some operators want to attract consumers through prize-attached sales but do not want to pay high promotional costs. They often intentionally avoid making clear and distinct statements about the types of prizes, redemption conditions, prize amounts, or prize items. They create difficulties when consumers try to redeem their prizes, making it impossible for consumers to actually receive the rewards they could reasonably expect [4].

For example, in a typical case: An operator advertised in promotional flyers that the grand prize was a BYD (Qin) car, and a BYD (Qin) car was displayed at the event on the day of the promotion. However, when a consumer won, the operator informed them that the grand prize was actually the 5-year right to use a BYD (Qin) car. According to the understanding of ordinary people, the grand prize should mean the ownership of one BYD (Qin) car. Yet, when redeeming the prize, the operator arbitrarily changed the car ownership to a car use right on the grounds that the prize sales information was unclear. This undoubtedly goes against general perception, deviates from consumers’ normal expectations for the prize redemption result, and should be determined as constituting the circumstance stipulated in this section [5]. In addition, some operators advertise “buy one get one free,” but what is actually given away is entirely different from what was purchased; the gift is just another item or benefit of relatively very low value, such as buying a television and getting a free umbrella. Alternatively, they advertise “free gift upon arriving at the store,” but in reality, they set a redemption threshold, requiring consumers to first make several purchases or reach a certain consumption amount before receiving the gift. In response to the endless chaos of prize-attached sales, Article 5 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities” clearly stipulates: “When conducting promotional activities, operators shall display activity information truthfully, accurately, clearly, and conspicuously, and shall not use false or misleading commercial promotions, such as false commercial information, fictitious transactions, or fabricated reviews, to deceive or mislead consumers or the relevant public.”

From the above, ambiguous, equivocal, and unclear prize-attached sales information receives negative evaluation under the law. So, how should operators achieve “clarity”? In this regard, Articles 13 and 14 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities” provide specific operational guidelines. Article 13 stipulates: “Before conducting prize-attached sales, operators shall clearly publish information such as the types of prizes, conditions for participation, methods of participation, time of the draw, methods of the draw, prize amounts or prices, prize names, prize types, prize quantities or winning probabilities, time of redemption, conditions for redemption, methods of redemption, methods of prize delivery, conditions for forfeiting prizes, the organizer and its contact information. Such information shall not be altered, no additional conditions shall be imposed, and prize redemption shall not be affected, except where it is favorable to consumers.” Article 14 stipulates: “Where the prizes are in the form of points, gift certificates, redemption vouchers, cash coupons, etc., detailed contents such as redemption rules, scope of use, validity periods, and other restrictive conditions shall be published; if redemption needs to be done with other operators, the names, redemption locations, or redemption channels of the other operators shall be published.” These two provisions also provide effective guidance for judicial institutions and relevant law enforcement departments.

For example, in the case (2019) Chuan 0603 Admin. First Instance No. 110, as can be seen from the fact-finding section, the top and sides of the lucky bag machine were marked with prize texts and patterns such as “Gifts for sure at the lucky bag machine specialty store, the grand prize for each period is randomly generated in various outlets under the Pacific Cinema chain, gifts are regularly updated; if you win a grand prize, please contact the cinema staff or call the customer service hotline; there are patterns of laptops, SLR cameras, mobile phones, etc.; lucky bag, 100% gift, lucky gift, continuous surprises, what are you waiting for, luck belongs to you.” In this regard, the Jingyang District People’s Court of Deyang City found: “Only the types of prizes were explicitly displayed on the body of the lucky bag machine operated by the plaintiff, while matters such as the models, values, and winning probabilities of the prizes were not explicitly stated, which extremely easily leads to disputes between consumers and the plaintiff over the specific prizes. Based on this, the defendant determined that the plaintiff’s prize-attached sales information was unclear, affecting prize redemption, and violated the provisions of Article 10, Item (1) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is not improper.”

Another example: On August 2, 2021, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation announced seven typical cases of operators’ improper prize-attached sales. Case 5 was the “Improper Prize-Attached Sales Case of Renrenle Commercial Group Co., Ltd.” In this case, the party concerned launched two periods of “PLUS Member Exclusive Year-end Draw for 10,000 Kweichow Flying Fairy Moutai 1499 RMB Purchase Qualification Vouchers” on November 28 and December 28, 2020. However, in the activity details for the first period, the party concerned did not clarify whether the 10,000 “Kweichow Flying Fairy Moutai 1499 RMB Purchase Qualification Vouchers” drawn was the total number for both periods or the number per period; in the activity details for the second period, the party concerned also failed to clearly publish the number or winning probability of the prize “Kweichow Flying Fairy Moutai 1499 RMB Purchase Qualification Vouchers.” Consequently, the law enforcement agency imposed an administrative penalty on the grounds that “the lucky draw activity information was unclear, affecting prize redemption,” imposing a fine of 100,000 RMB [6].

It is also necessary to note here that according to Article 13 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities,” the matters that the operator should clearly publish also include the winning probability. However, because the number of participants during the event dynamically changes, the winning probability also changes accordingly. Objectively, operators cannot foresee this and often cannot specify the winning probability in advance in the draw rules. So, how should the provision in Article 13 be understood, and how should judicial practice handle this?

The author believes that according to Article 13 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities,” “prize quantities” and “winning probabilities” should be understood as an alternative application (either/or). The reason for indicating the prize quantity or the winning probability is that it directly affects the strength of consumers’ willingness to participate in the promotional activity. Its purpose is also to regulate situations where operators conceal facts, deceive, or mislead consumers.

For example, in the case (2015) Shen Zhong Fa Xing Zhong Zi No. 162, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court ruled: “The appellant claims that the reported party failed to explicitly state the winning probability of the prizes to consumers, which belongs to deceptive prize-attached sales. This claim lacks factual and legal basis. By definition, probability represents a quantitative measure of the likelihood of an occurrence. In this case, since the number of eligible customers for the draw was uncertain, it was not improper for the reported party to explicitly inform purchasers of the likelihood of winning by fixing the number of prize quotas. Therefore, the appellant’s ground for appeal is invalid, and this court does not support it.”

Another example is the case (2014) Sui Zhong Fa Min Yi Zhong Zi No. 6577. The Walt Disney Company’s explanation regarding the winning probability was: “Grand Prize: Starting from 2013, at the end of the year, Disney will select one Grand Prize winner from the participating consumers, who will win a family trip to Hong Kong Disneyland. First, Second, Third, and Fourth Prizes: Since it is impossible to predict the total number of consumers participating in the draw, the winning probability is not a fixed numerical value. See ‘Draw Method’ below for details. Draw Method: The current draw formula is ‘Remaining total number of prizes / (Average daily number of people drawn × Remaining activity days)’. Detailed explanation as follows…”. Regarding this, the Tianhe District People’s Court of Guangzhou City held that “Judging from the activity rules, the winning probability indeed could not be known and specified in advance due to unforeseeable objective circumstances. However, the Disney Company had made a detailed explanation of the prize settings and draw rules… There was no act of failing to inform the winning probability as claimed by Xu Dajiang.” The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court also held that “The Disney Company had explained the winning probability on its website, and there was no concealment of the winning probability. As for the uncertainty of the winning probability (i.e., it could not be expressed as a fixed numerical value), the Disney Company had also clearly stated this on the website. This statement is a manifestation of respecting objective facts, rather than committing fraud against consumers regarding the winning probability.”

Thus, if the winning probability cannot be determined due to objective circumstances, the operator can still provide a detailed explanation of the number of prizes or the draw rules, and the judicial institutions will not solely rely on the failure to list the winning probability to determine that the operator committed fraud against consumers regarding the winning probability.

(II) Deceptive prize-attached sales behaviors

Deceptive prize-attached sales behaviors include two types: falsely claiming there are prizes, and intentionally letting pre-designated personnel win.

The so-called “falsely claiming there are prizes” includes advertising prizes when there are actually none, advertising grand prizes when there are actually only minor ones [7], and advertising free prize claims when actually requiring consumers to pay a certain amount to claim them. For instance, the Jimei District Market Supervision Administration of Xiamen City received a tip-off from a consumer who, while purchasing women’s shoes from a Taobao store, participated in the store’s “Double 11” activity. The promotion claimed: “From 00:00 on November 1, 2021, the TOP 1 in total actual payment amount across the store, and the first to third successful payers, will get a Dyson hair dryer worth 3,190 RMB…” However, this consumer rushed to buy at 00:00 on November 1, 2021, and the system showed the transaction was successful at 00:00:00, which was earlier than the top three names on the winner list published by the merchant, yet the consumer did not receive the prize. Later, when law enforcement officers requested to verify back-end transaction records and other information, the merchant could not provide them and ultimately admitted that the published winner list was fabricated and that the advertised rewards were not actually fulfilled. Therefore, the law enforcement agency ordered the merchant to cease the illegal act and imposed a fine of 50,000 RMB [8]. Another example is an improper prize-attached sales case involving a communications equipment store in Dalang, Dongguan, investigated by the Guangdong Market Regulation Department in 2022. In this case, employees of the company conducted free draw activities near their store under the guise of market surveys, attracting consumers to scan a QR code for a draw, subsequently winning a prize (a tablet, mobile phone, or electric scooter). They then brought the consumer into the store under the pretense of collecting the prize for free, recommended and requested the consumer to download and install the “Haitao Mall APP,” and only after the consumer topped up money and signed a “Customer Commitment on Successful Consumption and Receipt Slip” could they receive the prize. The company’s act of falsely telling consumers that claiming the prize was free when it actually required paying more money falls under conducting prize-attached sales through the deceptive method of falsely claiming there are prizes [9].

Furthermore, it requires special attention to distinguish this from the act of falsely claiming that a consumer has already won a prize when no one has. This violates Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which states: “An operator shall not carry out false or misleading commercial promotions regarding the performance, functions, quality, sales condition, user reviews, honors received, etc., of its goods, to deceive or mislead consumers.” This constitutes false advertising behavior, not the “false claim of prizes” behavior under this provision. For example, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation once exposed an improper prize-attached sales and false advertising case involving Shenzhen Taiheng Land Investment Co., Ltd. Under the circumstance where no customer had won the grand prize of a BMW 3 Series down payment, the company published an advertorial titled “Xiyue 831 Month-End Sprint Season, BMW Grand Prize Freshly Released,” deceiving and misleading consumers with fake winning results, which constituted false advertising behavior [10].

As for “letting pre-designated personnel win,” this means artificially interfering with the draw results so that specific individuals win or win grand prizes. For example, setting different winning probabilities for different subjects in a computer draw, or taking out the grand prize ticket and handing it specifically to targeted personnel in a manual draw. The “pre-designated personnel” are not necessarily insiders of the operator (e.g., employees), but could also be external personnel selected by the operator (e.g., specific individuals the operator attempts to bribe, major clients whose spending reaches a certain amount, etc.) [11].

As mentioned earlier, a draw-based prize-attached sale essentially determines whether consumers win and what prizes they win in an uncertain manner. Consumers who choose to purchase this operator’s goods over others’ based on the draw-based prize-attached sale naturally hold a reasonable expectation of winning, or even winning a grand prize. “Letting pre-designated personnel win” renders an originally uncertain outcome certain. This is undoubtedly extremely unfair to non-designated participants, whose reasonable expectations will fall through and whose legitimate rights will be infringed. At the same time, it is also unfair to other operators, as it diverts customers who might have originally belonged to them using false temptations. Therefore, it should be legally cracked down upon. For example, Case 6 among the seven typical cases of improper prize-attached sales by operators announced by the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation in 2021. In that case, when staff members of Dongguan Dedao Fishing Tackle Co., Ltd. were organizing and publishing the activity winner list, they pre-designated the winning quotas by fabricating false winner order information and gave the winning products to acquaintances. Upon verification, the law enforcement agency imposed a fine of 50,000 RMB on the grounds of “intentionally designating a winner list” [12].

(III) Giant prize sales

Regarding this provision, as China’s economic development level changed, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law was revised in 2017 to adjust the ceiling for the maximum prize amount of draw-based prize-attached sales from the original 5,000 RMB [13] to the current 50,000 RMB.

Draw-based giant prize sales have the following drawbacks: First, they distort consumers’ consumption choices, inducing and encouraging consumers’ speculative and gambling mentalities, making consumers buy not to acquire needed goods or services, but to win prizes. As a result, they buy unnecessary things, causing waste. Second, the costs of operators conducting giant prize sales will eventually be transferred to consumers. Although a few individuals win huge prizes, the vast majority of consumers have to buy the goods or services at higher prices. Third, giant prize sales can interfere with the normal operations of other competitors. Only financially robust operators have the ability to set up giant prizes, which could severely crowd out small and medium-sized operators with scarce funds and no ability to offer huge prizes, thereby destroying the market competition landscape [14]. Fair competition is the basic principle of a market economy and a crucial foundation for the efficient operation of market mechanisms, and giant prize sales undoubtedly run counter to this.

It should be emphasized that this provision capping the maximum prize at 50,000 RMB applies strictly to draw-based prize-attached sales. The “draw-based” here includes situations where the outcome is divided into winning and not winning, situations where the outcome is divided into large prizes and small prizes, and a combination of both. This needs to be distinguished from the following two situations: First, premium-attached sales that reward all purchasers with prizes of basically equivalent value (e.g., buy a house and get a parking space, where the location of the parking space is determined by a draw, but the value difference between different parking spaces is negligible). Such rewards are actually part of the transaction consideration, and the gambling nature is weak, so this provision generally does not apply. Second, where the winner does not obtain the reward merely by luck through a draw, but wins the reward by participating in activities through their intelligence, physical strength, or skills. This is generally regarded as a legitimate return for the participant, and this provision does not apply [15].

To effectively regulate operators from circumventing the “draw-based prize-attached sales with a maximum prize amount exceeding 50,000 RMB” clause in various forms during actual sales, Article 17 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities” further details the rules using an “enumeration + catch-all” format: “Any of the following circumstances shall be determined as the maximum prize amount exceeding 50,000 RMB: (1) Where a maximum prize is set with multiple winners, and the maximum prize amount for any one winner exceeds 50,000 RMB; (2) Where the same lottery ticket or a single purchase of goods carries two or more chances to win, and the cumulative amount exceeds 50,000 RMB; (3) Where the right to use goods, services, etc., are offered as prizes, and the market price of such right to use goods or services exceeds 50,000 RMB; (4) Where online virtual items such as gaming equipment or accounts are offered as prizes, and the market price of such items exceeds 50,000 RMB; (5) Where price reductions, discounts, markdowns, etc., are offered as prizes, and the converted price of such benefits exceeds 50,000 RMB; (6) Where lottery tickets, draw vouchers, etc., are offered as prizes, and the possible maximum prize amount of such tickets or vouchers exceeds 50,000 RMB; (7) Where the prize is set up under the guise of providing employment opportunities, hiring as consultants, etc., and rewarding by paying salaries, and the maximum prize amount exceeds 50,000 RMB; (8) Where draw-based prize-attached sales are conducted in other forms, and the maximum prize amount exceeds 50,000 RMB.” It can be seen that the 50,000 RMB limit not only refers to the monetary amount not exceeding 50,000 RMB but also means the total value of all property interests used as rewards must not exceed 50,000 RMB.

In the seven typical cases of operators’ improper prize-attached sales published by the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation in 2021, three cases involved administrative penalties for “draw-based prize-attached sales with a maximum amount exceeding 50,000 RMB,” which are: (1) Baoneng Motor Sales Co., Ltd. set up a Baoneng New Year “Koi” (Lucky) Grand Prize, including a Qoros 7 car purchase cash voucher worth 136,800 RMB, a Baoneng City Development Cultural Tourism Project year-round in-depth family tour (worth about 35,534 RMB), and a 1-year car use right worth 50,000 RMB, with the grand prize totaling about 230,000 RMB; (2) Zhongshan Jinsha Industrial Co., Ltd. set the prize as the “10-year use right of 1 apartment in Times Xiaoman (Zhongshan)” and paid 78,000 RMB in prize money after signing a “Notice of Winning the ‘All People Carnival 1 RMB Good House’ Activity” with the winning user; (3) Kaiping Changsha Yuehao Jewelry and Kaiping Changsha Ganghao Jewelry jointly carried out a draw-based prize-attached sales activity and advertised contents such as “Buy gold and get a car, 79,900 RMB tycoon prize, one Jetour SUV (10-year use right given).” This prize-attached sales activity was completed on January 3, 2021. A “Price Certification Conclusion Statement” from the Kaiping Price Certification Center showed that the retail market price of this car when brand-new and unregistered on the base date of January 3, 2021, was 85,000 RMB. Based on querying the same type of cars at similar price points on second-hand car platforms and calculating at the lowest depreciation rate of 75%, the 10-year use right of the prize “Jetour SUV” was valued at 63,750 RMB [16].

III. Compliance Suggestions for Prize-Attached Sales

In summary, prize-attached sales are a promotional method frequently adopted by operators, but they cannot be abused. They must comply with relevant legal provisions, and there are clear rules and prohibited legal red lines [17]. Regarding how operators should ensure legality and compliance when conducting prize-attached sales, the author proposes the following two compliance suggestions based on practical experience:

On the one hand, conduct proper prize-attached sales. Operators should abide by national laws and regulations such as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the Advertising Law, and the E-Commerce Law. They must clarify prize-attached sales information to guarantee that “consumers enjoy the right to know the true situation regarding the goods they purchase or use, or the services they receive,” avoid fraudulent behaviors such as false advertising, exaggerating prize values, and artificially interfering with draw results, and avoid giant prize sales behaviors where the “draw-based prize-attached sales maximum amount exceeds 50,000 RMB,” so as not to be subjected to administrative penalties by law enforcement agencies.

On the other hand, focus on personal information protection. When conducting prize-attached sales activities, whether online or offline, operators will inevitably collect consumers’ personal information, such as names, ID numbers, phone numbers, addresses, etc. Therefore, during this process, operators need to pay attention to complying with relevant regulations like the Personal Information Protection Law and the Cybersecurity Law. They should clearly inform consumers of the purpose, method, and scope of information collection, as well as measures for use, storage, transmission, and deletion, and establish an information security management system. They must properly encrypt data, avoid unnecessary information sharing—especially on unknown or untrusted websites or third-party applications—and strictly control the access and disclosure of consumers’ personal information.

[1] According to Article 2 of the “Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Activities,” the term “goods” includes the provision of services.

[2] “Study Q&A on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Xiang, p. 34, China Legal Publishing House, Dec 2017.

[3] “Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC (Practical Edition)”, p. 15, China Legal Publishing House, Nov 2017.

[4] “Interpretations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Ruihe, p. 35, Law Press China, 2017 (reprinted Feb 2018).

[5] “Qualitative Analysis of Improper Prize-Attached Sales Cases”, by Zhang Jionglong (Yangquan Market Supervision Administration, Shanxi Province), published in “China Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly”, Issue 7, 2021.

[6] “Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation Announces Seven Typical Cases of Improper Prize-Attached Sales by Operators”, Source: Official Website of Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation, published on Aug 6, 2021.

[7] “Interpretations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Ruihe, p. 36, Law Press China, 2017 (reprinted Feb 2018).

[8] “Falsely Claiming ‘Prize-Attached Sales’ and Fabricating a Winner List? Fined 50,000!”, Official WeChat Account: Xiamen Market Regulation, published on Apr 7, 2022.

[9] “607 Cases Investigated and Handled! Guangdong Releases 2022 Anti-Unfair Competition Law Enforcement Record and Top Ten Typical Cases”, Official WeChat Account: Guangdong Market Regulation, published on Jan 7, 2023.

[10] “Exposed! Guangdong Announces Top Ten Typical Cases of Anti-Unfair Competition in 2020”, Official WeChat Account: Guangdong Market Regulation, published on Feb 3, 2021.

[11] “Interpretations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Ruihe, p. 36, Law Press China, 2017 (reprinted Feb 2018).

[12] “Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation Announces Seven Typical Cases of Improper Prize-Attached Sales by Operators”, Source: Official Website of Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation, published on Aug 6, 2021.

[13] Article 13 of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China” (1993) provided: “An operator shall not engage in the following prize-attached sales: … (3) Draw-based prize-attached sales where the maximum prize amount exceeds 5,000 yuan.”

[14] “Interpretations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Ruihe, pp. 36-37, Law Press China, 2017 (reprinted Feb 2018).

[15] “Interpretations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC”, edited by Wang Ruihe, p. 37, Law Press China, 2017 (reprinted Feb 2018).

[16] “Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation Announces Seven Typical Cases of Improper Prize-Attached Sales by Operators”, Source: Official Website of Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation.

[17] “Review of Guiding Cases on Anti-Unfair Competition Enforcement by Guangdong Market Regulation Departments”, China State Administration for Market Regulation News, Page 003, Jan 19, 2022.