China Cracks Down on Excessive Food Delivery Subsidies: New 10-Point Rules to End the “Promotion War

The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released the “Ten Rules for the Regulation of Food Delivery Platform Subsidy Behavior” for public comment on June 17, 2026. According to the agency, the guidelines aim to end predatory subsidy wars between delivery platforms and prevent unfair competition that harms merchants and consumers.

The draft regulation targets the aggressive pricing strategies used by major food delivery platforms to capture market share. News Week, reporting via Jingchu Net, stated that the move signals a definitive end to the “subsidy wars” that have characterized the industry for years.

What are the Ten Rules for food delivery subsidies?

The SAMR draft focuses on transparency and fair competition. While the full text is open for public review, the core objective is to stop platforms from using subsidies to distort market prices or force merchants into restrictive agreements. The agency seeks to ensure that subsidies benefit the end consumer without compromising the viability of the small businesses providing the food.

A primary focus of the guidelines is the prohibition of “exclusive” deals. For years, platforms have used subsidies to incentivize merchants to list their services on only one platform. SAMR’s new rules aim to dismantle these “pick one of two” requirements, which the regulator views as a barrier to entry for smaller competitors.

The rules also address how subsidies are funded. According to the draft, platforms cannot shift the financial burden of a “platform-led” subsidy onto the merchant. This prevents platforms from advertising a discount to consumers while forcing the merchant to absorb the cost of that discount.

Why is SAMR intervening in platform subsidies?

Regulators are intervening to stop predatory pricing patterns. News Week notes that the “subsidy war” model often involves platforms spending massive amounts of capital to lower prices artificially. This strategy typically drives out smaller players who cannot afford to operate at a loss, eventually leaving the market dominated by a few giants.

Once competition is eliminated, platforms often raise commission fees or reduce merchant support. SAMR is attempting to break this cycle. The agency argues that subsidies should be a tool for legitimate promotion rather than a weapon for market monopolization.

The intervention follows a broader trend of Chinese regulatory scrutiny over “platform economy” giants. Previous actions have targeted algorithmic price discrimination and the exploitation of gig workers. This latest move shifts the focus toward the relationship between the platform and the merchant.

How will this affect merchants and platforms?

Merchants stand to gain more autonomy over their business partnerships. By banning exclusivity requirements, SAMR allows restaurants to list on multiple platforms simultaneously without fear of losing subsidies or facing penalties. This competition between platforms for the same merchant should, in theory, lower commission rates.

For the platforms, the rules necessitate a shift in growth strategy. They can no longer rely on “burning money” to acquire users or lock in vendors. Instead, platforms must compete on service quality, delivery efficiency, and genuine value addition for merchants.

News Week suggests that the era of “blind subsidies” is over. Platforms that relied on high-burn rates to inflate their user numbers will likely see a slowdown in growth as they transition to a more sustainable, regulated pricing model.

What happens next in the regulatory process?

The “Ten Rules” are currently in the public comment phase. SAMR is collecting feedback from industry stakeholders, including platform operators, merchant associations, and consumer rights groups. This process allows the regulator to refine the rules before they become legally binding mandates.

Once the comment period closes, SAMR will issue the final version of the regulations. Platforms found in violation of the final rules will face penalties under existing anti-monopoly and unfair competition laws. These penalties can include significant fines and orders to cease specific business practices.