Do not make or distribute tools that automatically skip or block ads in other apps; even free ones may be held to be unfair competition

Making software that skips or blocks ads in other apps for users may get you sued for unfair competition. Not charging money may still count; the law’s “operators” include individuals who provide services. A browser that by default blocked Mango TV’s pre-roll ads paid 800000 yuan. An App that let people jump past Mango TV’s splash ads paid 80000 yuan in losses

Cost

No money spent. The trade-off is dropping a popular little tool. The hard part is feeling you made no money and only clicked “skip” for the user

Benefit

The law provides that operators must not use technical means to obstruct or disrupt the normal operation of network products or services lawfully provided by other operators. Operators here means natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations that provide goods or services. Harm to the other side is compensated by the other’s actual losses, or by the benefit you gained, plus reasonable expenses the other side spent to stop the infringement. Market regulators may also fine 100000 to 1000000 yuan, or 1000000 to 5000000 yuan in serious cases. Official case: 720 Browser’s built-in feature by default intercepted Mango TV’s site pre-roll and pause ads. First instance dismissed Mango TV’s claim. Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court on appeal reversed, found unfair competition, and awarded 800000 yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses. In 2021 the Supreme People’s Court listed it as a model case. The “Lan Jingling” App let users jump past Mango TV’s splash ads. First instance ordered it to stop and pay 80000 yuan in economic losses and 10000 yuan in reasonable expenses. In April (4) 2024, Beijing Intellectual Property Court affirmed on appeal. The appeal court held it had in substance blocked the splash ad, not merely clicked “skip” for the user (nationwide)

Notes

Both judgments used the pre-amendment text. After the 2025 revision this provision moved to Article 13 and also covers data, algorithms, and platform rules. The appeal courts said the finding was about blocking; users clicking “skip” themselves are unaffected. In August (8) 2023, the free Android ad-skip tool “Li Tiaotiao” received a lawyer’s letter from Tencent. The letter said it blocked ads in Tencent Browser, constituted unfair competition, and demanded takedown within 48 hours. The developer said it was public-interest and non-profit; reports said it only took occasional tips. It still announced an indefinite pause in updates, and several similar apps stopped too. This matter has only media reports, no lawsuit and no judgment. An individual developer who gets a lawyer’s letter either stops or pays for a lawyer to defend. First-instance ordinary procedure starts at 6 months; lawyer fees are generally paid by yourself. Writing a script only for yourself — no pursued cases found. Selling ticket-snatching software and paying for unfair competition is in item 3 of this section (ticket-snatching and flash-sale scripts). The beneficiary is you yourself.

Sources · 4

1. 全国人大常委会 (2025 年修订). 反不正当竞争法（第二、十三、二十二、二十九条）. flk.npc.gov.cn/detail?id=ff808181971552b40197…
2. 最高人民法院 (2021). 人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例（案例五：「720浏览器」不正当竞争纠纷，（2018）粤73民终1022号）. court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/324491.html
3. 北京政法网 (2024-04-18). 「芒果TV」起诉「拦精灵」不正当竞争案，二审胜诉（来源：京法网事）. bj148.org/sa1/ajbb/202404/t20240418_1664299.html
4. 《财经》客户端 (2023-09-10). App屏蔽开屏广告，腾讯发律师函要求下架，合理吗？（财经E法 樊瑞）. mycaijing.com/article/detail/500930?source_id=40（网页存档 web.archive.org/web/20261005041658/https://ww…）