Tools that automatically skip or block ads from other apps — free and offline — may still be deemed unfair competition

Cost: There is no monetary cost. The trade‑off is giving up a popular little utility. The difficulty lies in the fact that you feel you’re not making any money; you’re merely helping users click “skip” for them.
In plain terms: Creating software that automatically skips or blocks ads from other apps can lead to a finding of unfair competition, even if no fee is charged. The law applies to anyone providing services, including individuals. One browser that blocks Mango TV’s opening ads was ordered to pay 800,000 yuan in damages. Another app that lets users bypass Mango TV’s splash ads was fined 80,000 yuan for losses incurred.
Benefit: Statutory rules state that operators may not use technical means to interfere with or disrupt the normal operation of network products or services lawfully offered by others. “Operators” here include natural persons, legal entities, and other organizations that provide goods or services. If harm results, compensation must cover the actual loss suffered by the other party, any benefit gained by the violator, and reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement. Regulatory authorities may also impose fines ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 yuan; in serious cases the penalty can reach 5,000,000 yuan. A notable case: the built‑in feature in 720 Browser that blocks Mango TV’s opening and pause ads was initially dismissed by a lower court, but an appellate court ruled it constituted unfair competition and ordered 800,000 yuan in damages plus related costs. In 2021 the Supreme People’s Court listed this as a model case. The “Liao Jingling” app, which lets users skip Mango TV’s splash ads, was ordered to cease operation and pay 80,000 yuan in losses plus 10,000 yuan in legal costs; a 2024 appellate ruling upheld this decision. The court emphasized that the app effectively blocked ads rather than merely acting as a “skip” button for users (nationwide).
Evidence grade: A
Sources: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）
Notes: Both rulings cited provisions that have since been amended. As of 2025 those provisions appear in Article 13, now also covering data, algorithms, and platform rules. The appellate courts clarified that merely allowing users to click “skip” does not violate the law, whereas actual blocking does. In August 2023 the free Android ad‑skipping tool “Li Tiaotiao” received a legal notice from Tencent alleging it blocked ads in Tencent Browser and thus engaged in unfair competition; Tencent demanded removal within 48 hours. The developer, who described the tool as non‑profit and noted only occasional donations, ultimately announced an indefinite pause in updates; several similar apps followed suit. No lawsuit or judgment resulted from this incident — only media coverage. When an individual developer receives such a notice, they must either discontinue the service or bear the cost of legal defense; first‑instance proceedings typically take at least six months, with legal fees paid by the developer. No documented cases exist of a personal script used solely by its creator being penalized. For comparison, developers selling ticket‑snatching software have been fined for unfair competition; see item 3 in this section (ticket‑snatching scripts). In this case the “beneficiary” is the individual user.