Do not build or distribute tools that automatically skip or block third-party app advertisements; even free tools can be prosecuted as unfair competition

Developing software that automatically skips or blocks advertisements embedded in third-party applications can lead to unfair competition lawsuits from content platforms. Charging zero fees does not provide a legal shield; statutory antitrust laws define business operators to include natural persons providing services. In judicial precedents, a web browser that blocked streaming video pre-roll ads was ordered to pay 800,000 RMB ($112,000 USD) in damages, and an Android utility that bypassed app splash-screen ads was ordered to pay 90,000 RMB.

Zero direct cost. The trade-off is relinquishing a popular developer utility. The psychological difficulty is feeling that you earned no money and merely automated the user's voluntary tap on a "Skip" button.

Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (revised 2025), business operators are prohibited from utilizing technical means to obstruct or sabotage the normal operation of legitimate network products or services provided by other operators. Business operators include natural persons, legal entities, and unincorporated organizations offering commercial goods or services. Liable parties must compensate for actual losses inflicted on the victim platform or disgorge unlawful benefits derived from the interference, alongside reimbursing all reasonable enforcement expenses. Market regulation authorities are also empowered to impose administrative fines ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 RMB (escalating to 1,000,000–5,000,000 RMB for severe violations). Official Judicial Precedents: In the landmark "720 Browser" litigation, a browser built-in feature intercepted pre-roll and pause advertisements on Mango TV. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court reversed the trial decision on appeal, finding actionable unfair competition and awarding 800,000 RMB in economic damages and reasonable costs—a case selected by the Supreme People's Court as a national antitrust/unfair competition typical guiding case in 2021. In another case, the "Lan Jingling" mobile app bypassed Mango TV's splash-screen launch ads; the Beijing Intellectual Property Court affirmed on appeal in April 2024 that the utility effectively blocked the ads rather than merely automating user clicks, ordering 80,000 RMB in damages and 10,000 RMB in costs.

Primary beneficiary is yourself. The appellate court distinguished between individual users manually clicking "skip" (which is lawful) and software distributing automated technical bypasses targeting third-party ad delivery infrastructure. In August 2023, the popular free ad-skipping utility "Li Tiaotiao" received formal cease-and-desist attorney demands from Tencent alleging unfair competition, prompting its developer to suspend all updates indefinitely despite operating as a non-profit tool supported solely by sporadic donations. When independent developers receive corporate cease-and-desist notices, legal defense costs in civil litigation must be funded entirely out-of-pocket. Scripting private automation tools strictly for your own personal device without distribution carries no verified enforcement records. Liability for automated ticket-purchasing bots is covered in Chapter 11, Rule 3. Benefit magnitude is categorized as High based on avoiding six-figure intellectual property judgments. Primary beneficiary is yourself.

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）