The many faces of anti-competitive practices in digital markets

Authors

  • Ekaterina V. Erofeeva National Research University Higher School of Economics
  • Daria A. Kotova National Research University Higher School of Economics
  • Anna E. Pozdnyakova National Research University Higher School of Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.404

Abstract

This article looks at some curious examples of restrictive practices typical for digital markets. Digital markets are a unique phenomenon for the new digital economy that is structurally based on and driven by digital platforms. The largest digital platforms such as Facebook or Amazon and large digital companies such as Google, Microsoft and Apple dominate the digital markets of today and thus have a huge potential to restrict competition in these dynamic markets. This article takes an analytical approach to several restrictive practices that have recently received attention from competition authorities around the world and have largely influenced law enforcement as well as our understanding of how digital markets function. First of all, the authors consider the so-called price parity clauses. Broadly speaking, these are a particular type of arrangements that oblige suppliers to not offer more favorable terms to their business partners than those offered to digital platforms (for example hotel websites as compared to online booking platforms). However, when narrowed down to contractual relations between a platform and a supplier, price parity clauses present a much more complex case. Further, the authors look at the multitude of restrictive practices in the online search market illustrated by a series of cases initiated against Google by the European Commission. By setting its search engine in a particular way, Google prioritized its own services so that they received more consumer traffic. Notably, these series of cases is just a part of the collection of anticompetitive tendencies in this market. Finally, this article looks at a less well-known, but all the more dangerous case of geo-blocking, which occurs when IP-protected content is blocked from distribution outside the framework that is reasonably justified by the protection of exclusive rights. Such cases must be examined through the complex relationship between the individualistic nature of IP rights and public interest. The collection of practices examined in the article highlights both the need to significantly reform competition enforcement and the need to rethink the role of competition law in the new economy. 

Keywords:

competition law, digital markets, competition enforcement, price parity, geo-blocking, discrimination, online search

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Bania, Konstantina. 2019. The Effects of Broadcasting Digitization on EU Competition Law: A Tale of EU Copyright Policies. Journal of Competition Law & Economics 15 (2–3): 237–282.

Bortolotti, Fabio. 2020. EU: The Guess Decision of the EU Commission: a first analysis. International Distribution Institute. Available at: https://www.idiproject.com/news/eu-guess-decision-eucommission-first-analysis (accessed: 15.02.2020).

Cremer, Jacques, Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, Schweitzer, Heike. 2019. European Commission. Competition Policy for the Digital Era. A report. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf (accessed: 15.02.2020).

Essers, Loek. Publishers urge European Commission to reject Google antitrust deal. Available at: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2602600/publishers-urge-european-commission-to-reject-google-antitrust-deal.html (accessed: 15.02.2020).

Ezrachi, Ariel. 2015. The competitive effects of parity clauses on online commerce. European Competition Journal 11: 488–519.

Graef, Inge. 2016. EU Competition Law, Data Protection and Online Platforms: Data as Essential Facility. London, Kluwer Law International.

Guimaraes, Guilherme. 2019. Global Technology and Legal Theory: Transnational Constitutionalism, Google and the European Union. New York, Routledge.

Jeffs, Claire (ed.). 2018. E-Commerce Competition Enforcement Guide. London, Law Business Research.

Manthorpe, Rowland. Google’s Nemesis: Meet The British Couple Who Took On A Giant, Won… And Cost It . 2,1 Billion. Available at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fine-google-competition-eushivaun-adam-raff (accessed: 15.02.2020).

Massarotto, Giovanna. 2019. Antitrust Settlements: How a Simple Agreement Can Drive the Economy. London, Wolters Kluwer.

Paal, Boris P. 2016. Internet search engines and antitrust law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law &Practice 11 (4): 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpw019.

Shestoperov, Dmitry, Lebedeva, Valeria. Yandex will be asked for the answers. Online services complained about the search engine. Kommersant. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4443716?from=four_business (accessed: 07.08.2020).

Published

31.12.2019

How to Cite

Erofeeva, E. V., Kotova, D. A., & Pozdnyakova, A. E. (2019). The many faces of anti-competitive practices in digital markets. Pravovedenie, 63(4), 598–624. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.404