Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission: Manufacturers cannot use permissions to impose unreasonable restrictions on software from other channels, and consumers have the right to know

According to news from this website on August 22, the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission issued a document today calling on mobile phone manufacturers to block third-party application downloads. Fair competition needs to be maintained and consumer rights need to be protected.

Currently, the Android system accounts for the highest proportion of smartphones in my country. There are two main sources for downloading application software for this system: one is the mobile phone brand’s own app store, and the other is third-party app stores such as Wandoujia and 360 Mobile Assistant, Tencent App Store, Baidu Mobile Assistant, etc.

Pixabay Many consumers have encountered this when they use third-party app stores to download and install apps on a daily basis: frequent pop-ups of installation permission windows or risk prompts, long-term risk detection, and redirects to recommended similar apps, and Scenarios that require user authorization or password verification in safe mode.
This site attaches the following views of the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Foundation:
Mobile phone root permissions should not be used as a technical means of competition. From the perspective of the technology itself, system root permissions can perform operations such as reading, writing, and modifying mobile phone system files or settings. Also known as super user authority, it is an important factor affecting the safe and stable operation of the mobile phone system.
Therefore, there is no problem in that root permissions cannot be freely opened to third parties. However, at the same time, manufacturers as system providers cannot use their "root permissions" to impose unreasonable restrictions on software from other channels, thus " weaponized” as a means of competition.
If this permission is used as a means of competition, it will not only hinder the fairness of competition and technological development in the application software market, but will ultimately hinder consumers' diversified choices and affect the consumer experience.
Competitive behavior shall not harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators. From the perspective of market competition, downloading and using application software is essentially a form of service consumption. Mobile phone manufacturers and third-party application providers are both service providers. Their status in the market should be equal, and their rights and obligations in providing services to consumers should also be the same.
In other words, for the sake of consumer information security, the act of giving security tips to reduce risks is reasonable in itself, but the tips themselves should not appear repeatedly or cannot be bypassed, so as to avoid such competitive behavior from actually becoming a mobile phone Manufacturers use their own technological advantages to set up obstacles for other operators to provide services, harming the legitimate rights and interests of other operators.
This kind of reminder has played a certain role in intercepting or hindering other competitors from providing services, just like a restaurant owner installing a gate at the entrance of other people's restaurants. It is obviously contrary to the market economic order and the principle of fair competition.
Consumers’ right to know and choose should be fully exercised. From the perspective of consumer rights protection, the criteria for judging safety prompt information for downloading mobile application software are usually not clearly stated. Consumers have no way of knowing whether such prompt information is given based on technical security testing, or whether it is a unified prompt for non-branded app store software simply by identifying the download source.
Therefore, consumers cannot objectively judge the true security of third-party application software, and may eventually have to give up third-party channels. In fact, consumers have the right to know the true situation of the goods or services they purchase. This is the legal right to know clearly granted to consumers by the Consumer Rights Protection Law (hereinafter referred to as the "Consumer Law").
In addition, Article 11 of the new "Implementation Regulations of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law" (hereinafter referred to as the "Implementation Regulations") also clearly stipulates that operators shall not use technical means to force or covertly force consumers to receive services and restrict consumers' autonomy. choose. Safety tips with unclear standards convey the message that "mobile phone applications from other channels have security risks" in disguise, which may mislead or affect consumers' choices, preventing the full exercise of the right of choice conferred by the Consumer Law and the Implementation Regulations. .
The Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Foundation calls on relevant departments to further pay attention to various phenomena and problems in current application software downloads, clarify the responsible parties for App security review, and create a consumption environment with a greater sense of gain, satisfaction, and happiness for consumers. and consumption experience.

The above is the detailed content of Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission: Manufacturers cannot use permissions to impose unreasonable restrictions on software from other channels, and consumers have the right to know. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!