Marshalling competitors in trade associations poses tremendous antitrust risks. Even if formal agendas steer clear of collusion, casual chatter among participants can easily stray into unlawful coordination and information exchange. On March 24, 2017, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) released the Guidelines on the Pricing Acts of Industry Associations (Draft for Comments) (Guidelines), highlighting the antitrust limits on Chinese trade associations amid renewed economic reforms.

Patina of past power

Trade associations played pivotal roles in China's past command economy, often coordinating pricing and production among units controlled by various branches of the state. Some evolved during the reform era into business advocacy groups akin to foreign trade associations, but others retained quasi-regulatory oversight, permitting, or coordination functions. Indeed, the Chinese government's assertions that trade association directives on export pricing and output carried the force of state policy ultimately proved fatal to a U.S. class action alleging collusion among Chinese Vitamin C exporters in a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The PRC Anti-monopoly Law (AML) took effect in 2008, explicitly forbidding trade associations from organizing “monopoly agreements” among members—effectively prohibiting the commercial coordination that had long been the core mission of many trade associations. Most “monopoly agreement” investigations under the AML have targeted cartels orchestrated by trade associations in products ranging from rice flour to insurance.