Six Compliance Lessons from a Successful Antitrust Defense: The SPC's Non-Binding Recommendations in a Gas Utility Case

A gas company was sued. All three allegations of abuse of dominant market position failed. The second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Complete victory.

But at the end of that judgment, the Supreme People's Court devoted an entire paragraph to listing its "room for further improvement"—six items in total.

These six items are not part of the operative part of the judgment and have no enforceability. They will become the most readily available citation material for the plaintiff in the next case.

(2025) SPC Zhi Min Zhong No. 950. This article gives you three things: the original text of the six-item list, the implementation actions and evidence carriers for each item, and a timing trap that can turn "done" into "not done."

I. The Six-Item List

In its reasoning, the Supreme People's Court stated that the gas company, as the sole operating enterprise responsible for providing natural gas supply in Tengchong, Yunnan, "under the goal of ensuring a local balance of total supply and demand, still has room for further improvement in how to more effectively achieve advance forecasting and precise planning," and should subsequently take further necessary measures to strengthen the standardization and transparency of its business management.

Here are the six specific items, broken down by "requirement → action → evidence":

II. The Hardest Part Is Not Doing It, but Retaining Evidence

None of the six items is difficult in itself. Item 3 is even just a matter of one sentence: tell users "you can still adjust after submitting."

The hard part is evidence retention. How did the plaintiff in this case attack? It argued that the gas company's inter-user transfer mechanism "occurred after the lawsuit was filed and has no retroactive effect," that it was "reactive remediation under litigation pressure," and it submitted WeChat group records claiming that as of 30 December 2024, none of the 12 industrial enterprises in the park knew of the mechanism.

In other words: the existence of a mechanism does not equal its usability. The standard of proof for usability is "all users were explicitly informed, and there is a trace."

The same act, done early, is called proactive compliance building; done late, it is evidence of opportunism. Timing determines nature.

III. A Concrete Scenario

Why does Item 2 emphasize "predictability of the start date"? This scenario makes it clear.

At 8:40 am on 22 October 2024, gas company staff posted a notice in the "Industrial Month-End Settlement Group": due to an urgent notice from upstream, they needed to once again collect and report next year's gas consumption plans, and asked users to send electronic versions before 9:30 am that day, adding "time is tight, thanks for your effort."

Responses in the group included: "We can't report accurately and have no way to adjust, no way to report, can't report, no solution to real difficulties."

Notice given the same day, deadline in 50 minutes. This scene was written into the judgment—precisely what Item 2 is meant to change.

IV. Self-Check Checklist

Check against your own situation. Whatever you cannot check is your weakest point when sued.

• Annual briefing has been held, with sign-in or photo/video records
• Annual declaration has a fixed start date, with written notice at least 15 days in advance
• The contract or written notice states that "adjustments can still be requested after submission"
• Monthly adjustment conditions are set out in written rules and accessible to users
• The inter-user transfer process is documented in writing and known to all users
• There are records of proactive communication with persistently deviating users

V. Beyond the List: Three Things That Actually Decided the Case

Copying the list is easy, but the list is not why the defendant won. The defendant won on three pieces of evidence retention:

First, the sealed "Energy Demand Plan Confirmation Form," with new seals confirming each of the three volume adjustments. Second, a three-and-a-half-year ledger of upstream-downstream deviation reconciliations, which turned "RMB 390,000 in profit" into "RMB 13,000 in difference." Third, the evidence package for suspension of supply: demand notices, verification of performance of effective legal documents, credit inquiry reports (stating the time of inquiry), and written approvals.

The list addresses "procedurally, you did everything." These three address "substantively, you stand on solid ground."

【Core Opinion】The six remediation items named by the Supreme People's Court in a winning judgment are not part of the operative part and have no enforceability, but they will become citation material for the plaintiff in the next case. The compliance asset of a public utility is not institutional texts, but time-stamped evidence retention—done early, it is proactive compliance building; done late, it is reactive remediation under litigation pressure. — He Zigang | Intellectual Property Lawyer | Aipunajie · Mili · Najie (20 years in practice, AI-native hybrid organisation practitioner)

The previous two articles covered the data interval for deviation settlement and the three pieces of evidence for suspension of supply. That wraps up this case. We have placed a tool on the Mili website: the deviation settlement exposure calculator. Fill in four numbers to see the risk range, plus a six-element compliance self-assessment. Free, no registration required.

Feel free to share in the comments which item you have stumbled on.

This article represents the author's personal views only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case analysis, please contact us.

This article represents only the author's personal views and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case analysis, welcome to contact us.