Ask AI · Why did regulators this time characterize the takeout war as macroeconomic interference?

On March 25, the central media outlet Economic Daily published a commentary article titled “The Takeout War Should End.” That same day, the official website of the State Administration for Market Regulation quickly reposted the article.

This is not the first time the government has spoken out about competitive conduct by takeout platforms, but this time’s remarks are notably different from the past.

1

In the past, official media and regulators’ criticism of takeout platforms mainly focused on “involution-style competition.”

For example, in May 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation and four other departments jointly convened major takeout platforms for talks, requiring rectification of “involution-style” competition and the standardization of platform-economy development so that it proceeds in a healthy and orderly manner; the People’s Daily also ran articles emphasizing comprehensive governance of such issues to maintain a fair market order for competition.

These criticisms mainly pointed to the vicious cycle among platform companies of burning money on subsidies and fighting over market share, and they largely focused on the companies’ behavior itself.

However, this time Economic Daily has upgraded the characterization of the problem. The article points out that this “takeout war,” which seems to offer consumers better deals, in reality has a negative impact on the entire macroeconomy.

The article analyzes that consumption, which should be picking up, has been dragged down—hard—by the catering/restaurant industry. In China’s CPI statistics, food, tobacco and alcohol, as well as dining-out, have a weight of nearly 30%; the decline in restaurant prices directly led to a “crouch” in CPI. By the end of the second quarter through the third quarter of 2025, the slowdown in the growth rate of catering/restaurant revenue overlaps closely with the downward curve of overall CPI—this is precisely the hottest period of the takeout war.

As one of the “three engines” driving economic growth, the importance of consumption is self-evident in the current context of pressure on investment and exports.

In March 2025, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued the “Special Action Plan to Boost Consumption,” rolling out measures across multiple aspects to improve consumption capacity. But the various kinds of disorder and chaos triggered by the takeout war are clearly at odds with the central government’s major decision and deployment, adding resistance to the rollout of macroeconomic policies.

Therefore, it is clear that regulators no longer view the takeout war as merely a company’s business conduct. Instead, they have characterized it as disorderly behavior that affects the overall picture of the national economy and interferes with macroeconomic management—its nature has undergone major changes.

2

This time, Economic Daily used the wording “must be put out,” and its rhetoric is unusually harsh, signaling another escalation in regulators’ stance.

In fact, since last year when Meituan and Alibaba launched the takeout war, regulators’ enforcement actions have been advancing step by step and escalating in intensity:

In May 2025, five departments jointly convened talks with major platforms, and for the first time proposed to rectify “involution-style” competition targeting the takeout war;

In July, the State Administration for Market Regulation held another round of talks, requiring major platforms to participate rationally in competition and jointly build a good ecosystem of shared success;

In October, regulatory personnel from the State Administration for Market Regulation went directly to the premises to conduct on-site inquiries with business heads of the various platforms;

Entering 2026, relevant departments continued to unleash regulatory storms:

In January, the Office of the State Council Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Committee officially launched a special investigation and assessment;

In March, the Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation and other departments held centralized talks and provided administrative guidance to multiple platform companies including Meituan, JD, and Alibaba, briefing on issues and urging rectification.

Even though regulatory signals have been released again and again, major platforms have not truly stopped. For instance, Alibaba’s management made clear at the beginning of the year that it would continue to increase investment in 2026, “with no (loss) burdens within three years,” and Jiang Fan reiterated at an earnings meeting its firm commitment to invest in Taobao Flash Sale.

While signaling agreement to cooperate with the investigation, they continue to ramp up investment, leaving people with the impression of “being summoned repeatedly and committing repeat offenses repeatedly,” and continuously wearing down regulators’ patience.

Against this backdrop, Economic Daily’s call to “must be put out” to major platforms differs from past reminders or guidance; it is more like a clear “final notice.”

Hear what is being said, listen to the tone. If platform companies do not voluntarily stop, what awaits them may not be only talks.

3

Economic Daily’s article also mentioned that healthy competition should be driven by technological innovation, efficiency improvements, and service optimization—not by money-burning games propped up by capital.

During the takeout war, Alibaba, JD, and Meituan accumulated subsidies of as much as 800 billion to 1000 billion, and the sustained burning of subsidies has severely eroded the profits of platforms.

For a long time, the capital markets have harbored doubts about the “burn money for growth” model pursued by domestic internet giants. A widely circulated joke goes like this: while Western tech giants pour huge sums into an AI arms race, our platform giants burn hundreds of billions so that consumers can drink milk tea for 1 yuan.

This contrast has also led investors to question the innovation capabilities and enterprise value of domestic platform companies. Since this year began, the stock prices of Meituan and Alibaba listed in Hong Kong have continued to fall, and at one point they even dragged down the Hang Seng Tech Index—something senior leadership clearly does not want to see.

So, whether to maintain stability in the capital market or to guide platform companies to put resources into technological innovation such as artificial intelligence, it is especially necessary to stop the takeout war in a timely manner.

Market reaction also confirmed this. On the day the State Administration for Market Regulation reposted the article, Meituan’s stock price surged by more than 10%, while the stock prices of JD and Alibaba also rose by more than 4.5% each.

From the perspective of the capital markets, ending irrational price wars is undoubtedly a major positive for the healthy development of platform companies.

This call from central media is not only a forceful correction of vicious competition; it is also a rescue of an industry that has been dragged into a quagmire. And timely regulatory intervention can also free platform companies from internal conflict.