The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR’s) review timeline for cases under the agency’s simplified procedure is significantly prolonged by complaints, according to an assessment carried out by this news service.

The assessment looked at simple case reviews in the first half of this year that elicited complaints from Liu Xu, a competition law researcher at Tsinghua University, one of China’s most prestigious institutions for higher learning. It concluded that the review period is significantly longer for cases Liu finds fault with.

Liu routinely monitors simple case announcements from SAMR and submits complaints to the agency if he detects inconsistencies, errors in market definition, flawed data inputs, or any pressing or potential competition concerns. Liu posts his complaints on a personal blog and makes them available to the public.

In the first half of 2025, Liu provided SAMR with feedback on 20 simple cases.

Among the 20 deals, nine were unconditionally cleared. The average review period was 24.7 days; while the median was 21 days, excluding two that elicited complaint after they were cleared by SAMR.

By comparison, in simple cases cleared by SAMR in the first half of 2025 (excluding data undisclosed for the date 30 June), the average and median durations for simple case reviews were 18.9 and 16 days, respectively – far shorter than cases that elicited complaints from Liu.

Of the 11 cases yet to be approved, the average and median review period reached 27.3 and 25 days, respectively, as of 29 June, significantly longer than those in 1H25. The actual review duration is longer when SAMR approves them.

Attracting SAMR’s attention

SAMR has been paying greater attention to Liu’s commentary in recent months, two China-based antitrust lawyers said.

Case handlers will look to see whether the academic has raised a complaint on the case before issuing an approval, the first lawyer said.

In some instances, case handlers will forward Liu’s complaints to involved deal parties and ask them to respond to his critique, the second lawyer said.

SAMR then takes stock of the deal parties’ responses to determine if they have addressed the researcher’s concerns prior to approving the case, the lawyers said.

The process, say the lawyers, prolongs review timelines for cases that Liu complains about.

Although it undoubtedly gives some weight to Liu’s commentary, SAMR does not directly reply to all of his complaints. In fact, antitrust officials have only responded to his submissions on one occasion in the first half of 2025; this concerned a complaint he raised with regard to Chongqing Bosai Mining Group’s (Bosai) proposed acquisition of SPIC Guizhou Jinyuan Suiyang Industry.

The case handler at the Chongqing Administration for Market Regulation called the researcher on 6 June to explain details of the case, Liu recounted on his personal blog. The Bosai case was unconditionally cleared on 10 June.

SAMR does not comment on ongoing matters.