Digital platforms in focus: Antitrust insights from Mainland China and Hong Kong scrutiny of food delivery platform – A three-part series

Part 1: Heightened antitrust scrutiny on food delivery platforms and evolving market landscape

The digital economy is becoming a cornerstone of modern commerce, with platform businesses spanning sectors such as food delivery, e-commerce and ride-hailing playing pivotal roles in shaping consumer behaviour and market dynamics.

Recent antitrust scrutiny of food delivery platforms in Mainland China and Hong Kong has now highlighted critical issues regarding anti-competitive restrictions.

These cases offer valuable lessons for businesses operating in platform-based models, enabling them to proactively address antitrust risks and lay the groundwork for sustainable business success.

This is a three-part series aiming to explore cases in Mainland China  in Part 1 and Hong Kong in Part 2 and providing key takeaways and recommendations to companies operating in vertical supply/distribution chains or platform businesses in Part 3.

Renewed digital crackdown

Market observers raised eyebrows on 21 February 2025 when Mainland China’s competition authority reignited its crackdown on the digital sector, with the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) quietly extending Meituan’s rectification period for antitrust compliance – without specifying an end date.¹1

This development continues a regulatory journey that began in 2021, when the food delivery giant faced significant penalties for abusing its dominant market position.²2

The origins of this case can be traced back to 2017, when Mainland China’s food delivery landscape underwent a major consolidation. Prior to this, three main competitors – Baidu Waimai, Ele.me (Ele) and Meituan – shared the market.

When Ele acquired Baidu Waimai in August 2017, the merged Ele initially held approximately 50% market share, followed by Meituan with 43.1% market share.³3

Chart 1: Mainland China online food delivery market in Q3 2017 (by transaction value)

(Source: Analysys)⁴4

However, by late 2018, Meituan had surpassed the combined Ele, capturing around 60% of the market and establishing what SAMR would later determine was a dominant position.⁵5

Meituan’s conduct after achieving this market dominance ultimately led to the hefty fines and on-going regulatory monitoring.

SAMR’s significant penalty of Meituan for market abuse

In October 2021, SAMR slapped Meituan with a massive RMB 3.44 billion (c. US$478 million) fine for abusing its dominant position in Mainland China’s online food delivery market.⁶6 The penalty targeted Meituan’s systematic strategy of restaurant exclusivity arrangements.

Meituan secured these exclusive agreements through three main mechanisms:

Chart 2: Meituan’s three-pronged exclusivity strategy

As a corrective measure, SAMR requested Meituan to cease these abusive practices. In addition, SAMR ordered Meituan to implement reforms to comply with the Anti-monopoly Law (AML), including the following:

Chart 3: Rectification measures ordered by SAMR

The three-year rectification period was initially set to end in October 2024.

However, as noted in the introduction to this section, SAMR has just extended this period without specifying a timeframe, because the company allegedly continued attempting to prevent restaurants from joining competing platforms during this period.⁷7

Coinciding with this regulatory development, Mainland China’s trillion-yuan online food delivery market has now welcomed a significant new entrant that will potentially disrupt the competitive landscape.

JD.com enters the arena disrupting status quo

In February 2025, e-commerce titan JD.com (JD) launched an aggressive push into Mainland China’s online food delivery platform. JD unveiled its “Quality Canteen” programme on 11 February  with two attractive incentives:

• Zero commissions for merchants joining before 1 May 2025;⁸8
• Comprehensive benefits package for delivery riders, including full social security and housing funds for full-timers, and insurance for part-timers.⁹9

Figure 1: JD’s mobile interface for its online food delivery service

(Source: JD mobile app)

For years, Mainland China’s online food delivery market has been dominated by Meituan, holding over 60% of market share since 2018, with Ele ranking second with around 30%.¹⁰10 Together, they control more than 90% of the market.

In this concentrated market, JD’s strategic move  provoked immediate responses from Meituan and Ele, both scrambling to announce enhanced rider benefits within days of JD’s announcement.¹¹11

The swift reaction demonstrates the disruptive potential of JD’s market entry.

Key takeaway

With JD’s entry into Mainland China’s online food delivery market and SAMR’s sustained scrutiny of competitive behaviours, the sector may see a shift towards more competition and healthier growth. At the same time, food delivery platforms must maintain strict antitrust compliance in this rigorous regulatory landscape.

With all the changes in the competitive landscape of the food delivery platforms in Mainland China, the recent online food delivery platform case in Hong Kong offers valuable lessons in navigating vertical agreements under rigorous competition oversight.

In Part 2, we will explore the Hong Kong antitrust saga involving Foodpanda and Deliveroo. Before diving in, here are some key questions to consider:

Unlike Meituan’s dominance in Mainland China, why were Foodpanda and Deliveroo, which were not dominant players, still subject to competition scrutiny? What specific conduct of Foodpanda and Deliveroo triggered the Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC)’s investigation? How did the HKCC consider potent player Meituan (i.e. Keeta) entering the Hong Kong market and how did it influence its evaluation of the Foodpanda/Deliveroo case? How do remedies accepted by the HKCC in the Foodpanda/Deliveroo case compare to those imposed by SAMR on Meituan, indicating potentially different approaches of the two authorities?