Scenario: Which self-preferencing acts are banned? — the opening question on “E-commerce Platform Accused of Self-Preferencing: Compliance”, with a reference situation of around 98,750 USD, under the law on 20 October 2026.
1. The current legal basis for EXP-6074
The directly governing framework is Competition Law 23/2018/QH14, Decree 35/2020/ND-CP and Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on competition penalties.
Self-preferencing on a digital platform is scrutinised under two frames: abuse of dominance in Article 27 of Competition Law 2018 where the platform holds significant share, and e-commerce transparency duties under E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 with Decree 248/2026/ND-CP (replacing Decree 52/2013/ND-CP from 1 July 2026).
2. Applying the rules to the concrete situation
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case.
The client’s questions on this topic — Which self-preferencing acts are banned?; Must ranking algorithms be fair?; How large is the fine?; How are seller complaints handled? — form a single decision chain: a wrong answer at the first link distorts every later link, so this article keeps the chain’s order and always returns to the file, the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines, to prove its conclusions.
3. Working through the questions companies actually ask
Which self-preferencing acts are banned?
Self-preferencing on a digital platform is scrutinised under two frames: abuse of dominance in Article 27 of Competition Law 2018 where the platform holds significant share, and e-commerce transparency duties under E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 with Decree 248/2026/ND-CP (replacing Decree 52/2013/ND-CP from 1 July 2026). The test of this conclusion sits in the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines and the the framework above framework.
Must ranking algorithms be fair?
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case. To rely on this conclusion, the company needs the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines matching the framework set out above.
How large is the fine?
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case. The risk on this point falls only when the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines is completed under the instruments cited in section 1.
How are seller complaints handled?
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case. The action consequence is to complete the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines before applying the instruments cited in section 1.
4. Handling process and the file to prepare
- Compare the actual file with the framework set out above and minute both sides: what matches, what diverges.
- Assemble the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines into one indexed set with a named owner.
- Act in the sequence approved in the minutes; never create papers backwards to regularise what was already done.
- Keep the EXP-6074 file as its own set, ready to produce when an authority or partner asks.
5. A worked figure and the action conclusion
Quantify it: 4,937 USD is the duty arising from a 98,750 USD situation at 5%; misclassifying the substance puts that whole amount at risk of reassessment or waste.
Conclusion: the point to remember on EXP-6074 is: Self-preferencing on a digital platform is scrutinised under two frames: abuse of dominance in Article 27 of Competition Law 2018 where the platform holds significant share, and e-commerce transparency duties under E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 with Decree 248/2026/ND-CP (replacing Decree 52/2013/ND-CP from 1 July 2026).
Frequently asked questions
1. Which self-preferencing acts are banned?
Self-preferencing on a digital platform is scrutinised under two frames: abuse of dominance in Article 27 of Competition Law 2018 where the platform holds significant share, and e-commerce transparency duties under E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 with Decree 248/2026/ND-CP (replacing Decree 52/2013/ND-CP from 1 July 2026). The accompanying file for this question alone: the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines.
2. Must ranking algorithms be fair?
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case. The accompanying file for this question alone: the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines.
3. How large is the fine?
Self-preferencing on a digital platform is scrutinised under two frames: abuse of dominance in Article 27 of Competition Law 2018 where the platform holds significant share, and e-commerce transparency duties under E-Commerce Law 122/2025/QH15 with Decree 248/2026/ND-CP (replacing Decree 52/2013/ND-CP from 1 July 2026). The accompanying file for this question alone: the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines.
4. How are seller complaints handled?
High-risk conduct includes ranking own goods first without publishing criteria, using third-party sellers’ sales data to launch competing products, and forcing sellers not to price lower elsewhere; compliance means separating the marketplace team from the own-retail team with a data firewall and publishing the ranking criteria Seller complaints need a channel independent of the commercial team: a fixed reply deadline, a right to an explanation for demotion or shop suspension, and escalation to the compliance function; a fair complaint-handling history is the main defensive evidence when the competition authority opens a case. The accompanying file for this question alone: the published ranking policy, the data-firewall rules between marketplace and own retail, and the seller-complaint log with handling deadlines.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
