Uneasy options - AML enforcement through judicial or administration system?

A recent high profile commercial dispute between Tencent and Qihoo 360 has attracted worldwide attention and forced hundreds of millions of users to choose sides. The conflict started with Tencent's launch of an upgraded version of the security software QQ Doctor, which gained about 40% of the market share almost overnight after it was bundled with Tencent's wildly popular instant messaging software QQ in early 2010 (mostly at the expense of Qihoo 360's antivirus software). On October 11 2010, Qihoo 360 alleges in its “privacy protection white paper” that the users of QQ are susceptible to losing their private data, a security risk that can be minimised by installing Qihoo 360's privacy protector. In response, Tencent blocked service to QQ users whose computers were installed with Qihoo 360's software on November 3 2010 under the claim that it compromised certain functions of QQ.

The war pits one of China's most successful Internet companies in Tencent, with over 600 million active users, against China's top security service provider in Qihoo 360, whose software enjoys a client base of over 300 million. In a move that reflects the growing role of Chinese judiciary in adjudicating commercial disputes, both parties filed civil cases, but on different legal grounds: Tencent sued Qihoo 360 for unfair competition and Qihoo 360's case claimed defamation. It was reported that Qihoo 360 also filed a complaint with the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC), alleging that Tencent's actions constituted abuse of market dominance in violation of relevant provisions under the PRC Anti-monopoly Law (中华人民共和国反垄断法) (AML).