Do not make or distribute tools that automatically skip or block other apps’ ads; free tools that work offline can still constitute unfair competition

No expense. The cost is giving up a popular little utility. The hard part is accepting this when you think you earned nothing and only clicked “Skip” for users.

The law prohibits business operators from using technical means to obstruct or disrupt the normal operation of online products or services lawfully provided by other operators. “Business operators” includes natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations providing goods or services. If you cause harm, compensation is based on the other party’s actual losses or the benefit you obtained, plus reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement. Market-regulation authorities can also impose fines of 100000 to 1000000 yuan, or 1000000 to 5000000 yuan in serious cases. Official cases: 720 Browser’s built-in feature blocked Mango TV’s pre-roll and pause ads by default. The first-instance court rejected Mango TV’s claim. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court reversed on appeal, found unfair competition, and awarded 800000 yuan for financial losses and reasonable expenses. In 2021, the Supreme People’s Court selected it as a typical case. The “Lanjingling” app let users directly skip Mango TV’s launch ads. The first-instance court ordered it to stop and pay 80000 yuan in financial losses and 10000 yuan in reasonable expenses. In April 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld the judgment. It found the app effectively blocked launch advertisements rather than merely clicking “Skip” for users (nationwide).

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）

Both judgments applied the pre-amendment provisions. The 2025 amendment moved this provision to Article 13 and added data, algorithms, and platform rules. The appellate court said its judgment concerned blocking; users clicking “Skip” themselves are unaffected. In August 2023, the free Android ad-skipping tool “Li Tiaotiao” received a lawyer’s letter from Tencent. It alleged that blocking Tencent Browser’s advertisements constituted unfair competition and demanded removal within 48 hours. The developer said it was a nonprofit public-interest project; reports said it received only occasional tips. Nonetheless, it announced an indefinite halt to updates, and several similar apps also stopped. This was reported only in the media, with no lawsuit or judgment. Individual developers receiving a lawyer’s letter must either stop or pay for their own lawyer to defend a claim. Ordinary first-instance proceedings start at 6 months, and lawyer fees are generally your own expense. No case was found pursuing someone who wrote a script solely for personal use. For unfair-competition damages from selling ticket-grabbing software, see Item 3 in this section (ticket-grabbing and flash-sale scripts). The beneficiary is you.