11-018 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE
Do not build or distribute tools that skip or block another app's advertisements
不做、不发自动跳过或屏蔽别家 App 广告的工具，免费、不联网也可能被判不正当竞争
Avoiding the project costs no money; legal review and compliance work require time.
Chinese courts have treated some ad-skipping or ad-blocking tools as unfair competition, including cases involving unpaid tools and monetary damages.
A
Move “Do not build or distribute tools that skip or block another app's advertisements” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
If I do not open the notes, no new task has technically appeared.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “Chinese courts have treated some ad-skipping or ad-blocking tools as unfair competition, including cases involving unpaid tools and monetary damages.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Use the original facts and limits. For an urgent medical, safety, financial, or legal issue, contact a qualified local professional or service.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
18. Do not build or distribute tools that skip or block another app's advertisements
Cost: Avoiding the project costs no money; legal review and compliance work require time.
In plain terms: Chinese courts have treated some ad-skipping or ad-blocking tools as unfair competition, including cases involving unpaid tools and monetary damages.
Applicability and limits: Outcomes depend on how a tool works and the parties involved. The original entry cites the decisions and applicable statute.
Translation note: This concise English edition was prepared for this site; the full Chinese source and its original evidence remain available below.
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
18. 不做、不发自动跳过或屏蔽别家 App 广告的工具，免费、不联网也可能被判不正当竞争
成本: 不花钱。代价是放掉一个很受欢迎的小工具。难在你觉得自己没挣钱，只是替用户点了一下「跳过」
说人话: 做软件替用户跳过、屏蔽别家 App 的广告，会被对方告不正当竞争。不收钱也可能算，法律管的经营者包括提供服务的个人。有浏览器默认屏蔽芒果TV 的片头广告，赔了 80 万元。有 App 让人直接跳过芒果TV 的开屏广告，赔了 8 万元损失。
收益: 法律规定，经营者不得利用技术手段，妨碍、破坏其他经营者合法提供的网络产品或服务正常运行。这里的经营者，指提供商品或服务的自然人、法人和非法人组织。给对方造成损害的，按对方的实际损失赔，或者按你因此得到的好处赔，再加上对方为制止侵权花的合理开支。市场监管部门还可以罚 10 万到 100 万元，情节严重的罚 100 万到 500 万元。官方案例：720 浏览器的内置功能默认拦截芒果TV 网站的片头广告和暂停广告。一审驳回了芒果TV 的起诉。广州知识产权法院二审改判，认定构成不正当竞争，判赔经济损失和合理开支 80 万元。2021 年最高法把它列为典型案例。「拦精灵」App 让用户直接跳过芒果TV 的开屏广告。一审判它停止，赔经济损失 8 万元、合理开支 1 万元。2024 年 4 月，北京知识产权法院二审维持。二审认为它实际是把开屏广告屏蔽了，不只是替用户点「跳过」（全国）
证据等级: A
来源: 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）. <https://flk.npc.gov.cn/detail?id=ff808181971552b40197b1016efc5437>；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）. <https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/324491.html>；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）. <https://www.bj148.org/sa1/ajbb/202404/t20240418_1664299.html>；《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）. <https://www.mycaijing.com/article/detail/500930?source_id=40>（网页存档 <https://web.archive.org/web/20261005041658/https://www.mycaijing.com/article/detail/500930?source_id=40>）
备注: 两起判决用的是修订前的条文。2025 年修订后，这一条挪到第十三条，还加上了数据、算法和平台规则。二审法院说判的是屏蔽，用户自己点「跳过」不受影响。2023 年 8 月，安卓上的免费跳广告工具「李跳跳」收到腾讯的律师函。律师函说它屏蔽了腾讯浏览器的广告，构成不正当竞争，要它 48 小时内下架。开发者说它是公益性质、不盈利，报道说它只收零星打赏，但它还是宣布无限期停更，几款同类软件也停了。此事只有媒体报道，没有起诉，也没有判决。个人开发者收到律师函，要么停手，要么自己花钱请律师应诉。一审普通程序 6 个月起，律师费一般自己出。自己写个脚本只给自己用，没找到被追究的案例。卖抢票软件按不正当竞争赔钱，见本节第 3 条（抢票秒杀脚本）。受益人是你自己。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST