Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2022

CNKI was fined ¥87.6M for monopoly — China's academic paywall finally broke

The SAMR fined the academic database 5% of its 2021 revenue for exclusive dealing and unfair pricing against universities

CNKI · 知网 · 2022-12-26

What happened

China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the country's dominant academic database, was fined ¥87.6 million by the State Administration for Market Regulation in December 2022 for abusing its market dominance. The penalty was 5% of CNKI's 2021 domestic revenue of ¥1.752 billion. The SAMR found that CNKI had locked academic journals and universities into exclusive agreements and charged unfairly high prices for access to its database.

CNKI's monopoly had been a long-standing grievance in Chinese academia. Universities paid millions each year for access to the same papers their own faculty had written, and CNKI's exclusive deals prevented journals from listing with competitors. The case was opened in May 2022 after public outcry, notably when a graduate student sued CNKI for charging ¥15 for a paper download while paying the author virtually nothing. CNKI responded to the fine by pledging to end exclusive agreements, lower prices, and improve author compensation.

Why it happened

  • CNKI used its dominance to lock journals into exclusivity and charge universities monopoly prices, profiting at the expense of the institutions it served
  • The company ignored years of criticism from the academic community, forcing a regulatory intervention that it could have avoided by voluntary reform
What it cost¥87.6M fine plus forced end of exclusive dealscostly

The lesson

A platform that controls access to essential infrastructure — academic papers, search results, payment rails — is a public utility, and monopoly pricing will eventually invite a regulator

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →