为了遏制平台经济领域的无序扩张，创造公平、包容的竞争环境，我国出台了大量针对平台、数据和算法的法律法规。其中，轴辐协议也被纳入规范范围。随着算法和大数据的发展以及熟练运用，轴辐协议也在平台经济领域内蔓延开来。轴辐协议打破了传统垄断协议二分法理论，是一种具有横纵双重特征的垄断协议。然而，由于平台经济具有更加科技化的特殊属性，传统交易中轴辐协议认定的理论和方法不能完全适用于平台经济，反垄断监管也面临更大的困难和挑战。因此，在对平台经济的反垄断监管中，需要采取更为精准的认定方法，以维护市场秩序和消费者权益。确立平台经济领域轴辐协议认定标准是实施法律规制的前提，而具体针对认定标准的详细讨论较少，本文将会针对平台经济特性对轴辐协议的认定进行更加深入的探讨。

本文从结构上共分为五个部分：

第一部分主要对平台经济领域轴辐协议认定进行了简要概述，对传统领域轴辐协议的认定要件中主体要件、行为要件、主观要件进行详细探讨，同时也总结出轴辐协议在平台经济领域中的三个新特征：一是轴心经营者角色定位不同，二是协同行为达成及实施方式不同、三是合谋达成及载体形式不同。

第二部分重点分析了我国平台经济领域轴辐协议认定困境的具体表现，具体为平台轴辐协议责任主体难以认定、平台内辐轮间达成协同行为难以认定、平台内辐轮之间达成意思联络难以认定等，准确把握认定困境的表现形式有助于深入挖掘造成困境的成因，从而寻找解决困境的途径。

第三部分针对上述困境的具体表现总结出产生问题的成因，包括竞争分析原则不适用、技术限制以及平台企业披露信息不足等因素，这些因素共同导致了平台经济领域轴辐协议认定的困难及挑战。

第四部分介绍了域外的平台经济领域轴辐协议认定的经验及启示，以三个轴辐协议典型案件为例，对其进行梳理并从中总结经验借鉴，参照域外经验借鉴，提出引入竞争分析工具的过渡原则、客观事实参照“平行行为+附加因素”的认定模式，主观方面认定参照“主观弱化标准”等举措。这些经验借鉴为解决平台经济领域中轴辐协议认定面临的困境提供了有益的参考。

第五部分结合我国实际，提出我国平台经济领域轴辐协议认定的完善措施，主要通过对平台经济轴辐协议适用竞争分析工具的明确、主客观方面认定标准的细化，以及对平台企业信息披露制度的推进等方式进行完善。

To curb the disorderly expansion of the platform economy and create a fair and inclusive competitive environment, China has enacted a large number of laws and regulations targeting platforms, data, and algorithms. Among them, hub-and-spoke agreements have also been included in the regulatory scope. With the development and proficient use of algorithms and big data, hub-and-spoke agreements have spread in the platform economy, breaking the traditional monopoly agreement dichotomy and becoming a monopolistic agreement with both horizontal and vertical characteristics. However, due to the more technological nature of the platform economy, the theoretical and methodological approaches to hub-and-spoke agreements in traditional transactions cannot fully apply to the platform economy, and anti-monopoly regulation also faces greater difficulties and challenges. Therefore, more precise recognition methods need to be adopted in the anti-monopoly regulation of the platform economy to maintain market order and consumer rights. Establishing recognition standards for hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy is a prerequisite for implementing legal regulation, and there is relatively little detailed discussion on specific recognition standards. This article will delve deeper into the recognition of hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy based on its characteristics.

This article is structured into five parts.:

The first part provides a brief overview of the recognition of hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy. It explores in detail the essential elements of recognition for hub-and-spoke agreements in traditional fields, including the subject element, conduct element, and subjective element. Additionally, it summarizes three new features of hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy: (1) the different positioning of the hub operator, (2) the different methods of achieving and implementing coordinated behavior, and (3) the different forms of collusion and carriers.

The second part focuses on the specific manifestations of the difficulties in identifying hub-and-spoke agreements in China's platform economy. These include the difficulty in identifying the responsible parties for hub-and-spoke agreements on platforms, the difficulty in identifying cooperative behavior between spokes on platforms, and the difficulty in identifying communication and coordination among spokes on platforms. Accurately grasping the manifestations of these identification difficulties helps to further explore the causes of the difficulties and find ways to solve them.

The third part summarizes the causes of the problems in view of the specific manifestations of the above difficulties, including factors such as the non-application of competitive analysis principles, technical limitations, and insufficient disclosure of information by platform enterprises, which have jointly led to difficulties and challenges in the identification of hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy field.

The fourth part introduces the experiences and inspirations of identifying hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy outside of China, using three typical cases as examples to summarize and learn from them. Referring to the experiences and inspirations from outside the region, transitional principles that introduce competition analysis tools, an objective fact-based recognition model of "parallel behavior + additional factors," and subjective recognition of "subjective weakening standards" are proposed. These experiences and inspirations provide valuable references for addressing the difficulties faced in identifying hub-and-spoke agreements in China's platform economy.

The fifth part proposes measures to improve the identification of hub-and-spoke agreements in China's platform economy, based on the country's actual situation. These measures focus on clarifying the application of competition analysis tools for hub-and-spoke agreements in the platform economy, refining the standards for subjective and objective recognition, and promoting the disclosure of platform enterprise information.