The scope of competition law in the digital economy

Authors

  • Ioannis Lianos National Research University Higher School of Economics, University College London
  • Zingales Nicolo University of Leeds
  • Andrew McLean University College London
  • Azza Raslan University College London
  • Matthew J. Strader University College London

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.402

Abstract

The article reveals new problems arising in the digital economy and the need for antimonopoly regulation. It also analyzes the legal remedies and procedures for competition law in the context of digitalization. Redesigning competition law procedures for the digital economy can take two forms: 1) ensure the rate of competition law enforcement so as to avoid acting in situations when market tipping has already occurred and it is almost impossible to reverse the anticompetitive outcome; 2) develop remedial action that takes into account the scale of anticompetitive behavior, which might better reflect the complexity of digital markets. Competition authorities should consider utilizing interim measures and commitment decisions in the digital economy, both instruments playing a complementary role. Interim measures can be used within a revised framework with lower thresholds, but this should only be reserved for complicated and lengthy investigations where there is risk of irreversible harm to competition. These measures should be applied to the most harmful violations, such as cartels and abuse of dominance. Commitment decisions can be utilized to address less serious violations where it is also beneficial to the competition authority to reach a swift resolution. The article analyzes the division of companies as a way to eliminate violations. Division can take different forms and need not be structural. A certain ‘light-touch’ separation may be achieved by policies mandating that digital platforms not use personal data that has been harvested by the members of their ecosystems unless they have the explicit consent of their users. The article also addresses issues such as data portability and cross-platform compatibility. The authors have proved that the BRICS countries need to supplement their national legislation on the protection of personal data in terms of norms on their portability. Although it is not mainly designed as a tool to combat monopolies and market power, data portability will have a significant impact on competition in digital markets. Multisided digital platforms are characterized by a high network and lock-in effects. In a winner takes all, or most, where undertakings compete for the market rather than in the market, the right to data portability may provide some relief from the power that large digital platforms hold. 

Keywords:

digital economy, interim measures, commitment decisions, personal data, data portability, competition by design, BRICS countries

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Andrade, Tito, Novis, Maria, Verissimo, Marcos. 2018. Brazil: Merger Control. Global Competition Review. Available at: https://globalcompetitionreview.com/insight/the-antitrust-review-of-theamericas 2019/1173676/brazil-merger-control (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Borgogno, Oscar, Colangelo, Giuseppe. 2019. Data Sharing and Interoperability: Fostering Innovation and Competition Through APIs. Computer and Security Law Review 35 (5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.03.008.

Bresnahan, Timothy. 1999. New Modes of Competition: Implications for the Future Structure of the Computer Industry. Competition, Innovation and the Microsoft Monopoly: Antitrust in the Digital Marketplace. Eds Jeffrey Eisenach, Thomas M. Lenard: 155–208. London, Springer.

Burk, Dan L. 2017. Algorithmic Fair Use. University of Chicago Law Review 86: 283–309.

Burnside, Alec, Kidane, Adam. 2018. Interim Measures: An Overview of EU and National Case Law. Concurrences 86718. Available at: https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/specialissues/interim-measuresen/dominance/interim-measures-an-overview-of-eu-and-nationalcase-law (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Cave, Martin, Hatta, Keiko. 2015. Smart Devices, Fixed/Mobile Convergence and The Cloud: Some Medium-Term Regulatory Challenges. The Smart Revolution Towards the Sustainable DigitalSociety. Eds Mitomo, Hitoshi, Fuke, Hidenori, Bohlin, Erik: 209–224. London, Edward Elgar.

Chander, Anupam, Kaminski, Margot E., McGeveran, William. 2019. Catalysing Privacy Law. University of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research 19–25: 1–55. Available at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2190 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Chisholm, Simon, Long, Sarah, Parker, Helen. 2019. Interim measures in the UK: lessons from the online auction services case. The International In-house Counsel Journal 12 (46): 1–16.

Cremer, Jacques, Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, Schweitzer, Heike. 2019. Competition Policy for the Digital Era. EU Commission Final Report. OPOCE.

Deng, Ai. 2019. From the Dark Side to the Bright Side: Exploring Algorithmic Antitrust Compliance. NERA Economic Consulting Paper. 9. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3334164 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Desai, Deven, Kroll, Joshua. 2018. Trust but Verify: A Guide to Algorithms and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 31 (1): 1–49.

Determann, Lothar. 2019. Healthy Data Protection. UC Hastings Research Paper: 7–8. URL: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol26/iss2/3 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Drexl, Josef, Di Porto, Fabiana. 2015. Competition Law as Regulation. Massachusetts, Edward Elgar Publ.

Drexl, Josef, Hilty, Reto M., Desaunettes, Luc, Greiner, Franziska, Kim, Daria, Richter, Heiko, Surblytė, Gintarė, Wiedemann, Klaus. 2016. Data Ownership and Access to Data. Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Current European Debate 40. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2833165 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Dunne, Niamh. 2015. Competition law and Economic Regulation — Making and Managing Markets. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Elkin-Koren, Niva. 2017. Fair Use by Design. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Law Review 64: 1098–1117.

Eloff, Daniel. 2018. Unscrambling the General Data Protection Regulation. Derebus. Available at: http://www.derebus.org.za/unscrambling-the-general-data-protection-regulation (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Elvy, Stacy-Ann. 2018. Commodifying Consumer Data in the Era of the Internet of Things. Boston College Law Review 59: 424–522.

Furman, Jason, Coyle, Diane, Fletcher, Amelia, Marsden, Philip, McAuley, Derek. 2019. Unlocking Digital Competition. Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel: 1–150. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785547/unlocking_digital_competition_furman_review_web.pdf (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Gans, Joshua. 2018. Enhancing Competition with Data and Identity Portability. The Hamilton Project. Policy Proposal 12: 1–28. Available at: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Gans_20180611.pdf (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Gata, Joao E. 2019. Controlling Algorithmic Collusion: Short Review of the Literature, Undecidability and Alternative Approaches . REM Working Paper 077-2019: 1–20. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3334889 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Goldman, Eric. 2019. An Introduction to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) . Santa ClaraUniversity Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at: https://northerndistrictpracticeprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Intro-to-CCPA. pdf (accessed: 15.02.2020).

Graef, Inge, Husovec, Martin, van den Boom, Jasper. 2019. Spill-Overs in Data Governance: The Relationship Between the GDPR’s Right to Data Portability and EU Sector-Specific Data Access Regimes. TILEC Discussion Paper No. DP 2019-005. SSRN. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3369509 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Harrington, Joseph. 2018. Developing Competition Law for Collusion by Autonomous Artificial Agents. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 14 (3): 331–363.

Khan, Lina M. 2019. The Separation of Platforms and Commerce. Columbia Law Review 119: 980–1081.

Kroll, Joshua A., Huey, Joanna, Barocas, Solon, Felten, Edward W., Reidenberg, Joel R., Robinson, David G., Yu, Harlan. 2017. Accountable Algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165: 633–705.

Lopez Giron, Ali, Vialle, Pierre. 2017. Preliminary analysis of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoftfrom 1992 to 2016: a resource and competence perspective. 28th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): “Competition and Regulation in the Information Age”. Passau, Germany, July 30 — August 2, 2017. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/169462/1/Giron-Vialle.pdf (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Marsden, Philip, Walles Spencer, Fabbio, Philipp. 2013. Antitrust Marathon V: When In Rome Public And Private Enforcement of Competition Law. European Competition Journal 9 (3): 503–622.

Munyai, Phumudzo. 2011. Interim Relief Jurisprudence in South African Competition Law: A Critical Review of The Competition Tribunal’s Approach. SA Mercantile Law Journal 23 (3): 432–447.

Rooijen, Ashwin. 2010. The Software Interface between Copyright and Competition Law: A Legal Analysis of Interoperability in Computer Programs. New York, Kluwer Law International.

Toplensky, Rochelle. 2019. Vestager Revives Dormant Antitrust Weapon Against Tech Groups. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/d2796956-981b-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229 (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Triaille, Jean-Paul, D’Argenteuil, Jerome. 2014. Legal Framework of Text and Data Mining. European Commission Study 17: 1–122. URL: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/074ddf78-01e9-4a1d-9895-65290705e2a5/language-en (accessed: 30.09.2020).

Tsukanov, Igor. 2012. VimpelCom appealed the interim measures imposed by the FAS. Vedomosti. Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2012/06/09/kontrmery_vympelkoma (accessed: 30.09.2020). (In Russian)

Vezzoso, Simonetta. 2019. Competition by design. Competition Law for the Digital Economy. Eds Bjorn Lundqvist, Michal S. Gal: 93–121. London, Edward Elgar.

Watzinger, Martin, Fackler, Thomas A., Nagler, Markus, Schnitzer, Monika. 2020. How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 12 (4): 328–359.

Published

31.12.2019

How to Cite

Lianos, I., Nicolo, Z., McLean, A., Raslan, A., & J. Strader, M. (2019). The scope of competition law in the digital economy. Pravovedenie, 63(4), 522–572. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.402

Most read articles by the same author(s)