According to Haidian court network 19 news, because it believes that its rights video products are today’s headlines as the “Toutiao search” trigger search ads keywords, intervention in search results,” haokan video” Android mobile developer Baidu online network technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and “haokan video” IOS mobile, “Baidu video” Developer Beijing Baidu Internet News Technology Co., Ltd. on the grounds of unfair competition, today’s headline operator Beijing ByteDance Technology Co., Ltd. to the court, asking it to immediately stop unfair competition, compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1 million yuan, published a statement, eliminate the impact. Recently, Haidian court accepted the case.
Plaintiff Baidu Online Company and Baidu Internet News Company complained that “Baidu Video”, “haokan Video” is Baidu’s operating video aggregation platform, mainly relying on Baidu’s video search, recommendation, big data and other areas of core technology, for users to recommend personalized video content, with a high visibility.
A Survey by Baidu found that Beijing ByteDance provides “toutiao search” services to users in today’s headline mobile client. In today’s headline-grabbing “toutiao Search” service, when you enter the video products involved in the search, the search results show the “watermelon video” owned and operated by Beijing ByteDance.
Plaintiffbaidu Online and Baidu Internet News Believe that Toutiao will be the rights of its two companies in the case of video products, as a “toutiao search” to trigger search ads in the keyword, interference in search results, its behavior is the use of improper ways to obtain competitive advantage, plundering what belongs to its business opportunities. At the same time, today’s headline son, as a network search engine service provider, helps himself to own and operate the “xigua video” improperly obtain competitive advantage, which seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Baidu, disrupts the fair competition order of the network, violates business ethics, and constitutes unfair competition.
The case is currently under further consideration.