Daniele Condorelli and Jorge Padilla ‘Harnessing Platform Envelopment through Privacy Policy Tying’ (working paper)

Entry into platform markets subject to strong network effects and high switching costs can occur in two ways. First, by offering drastically new functionality (i.e. through Schumpeterian innovation). Second, through “platform envelopment” whereby a provider in one platform market – the origin market – enters another platform market – the target market – and combines its own functionality with that of the target in a multi-platform bundle that leverages shared user relationships and/or common components. Envelopers capture market share by foreclosing an incumbent’s access to users; in doing so, they harness the network effects that previously had protected the incumbent. This working paper, available here,  revisits the economics of “platform envelopment”, with a focus on data-related strategies. In particular, it analyses the logic and effects of “privacy policy tying”, a strategy whereby the enveloper requests the consumers’ consent to combining their data in both origin and target markets. This allows the enveloper to fund the services offered to all sides…

Wolfgang Kerber ‘Data Sharing In IoT (Internet of Things’) Ecosystems And Competition Law: The Example Of Connected Cars’ (2019) Journal of Competition Law & Economics (forthcoming)

In Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystems, one firm often has exclusive control over the data produced by a smart device, as well as of the technical means of access to this device. Such a gatekeeper position can empower firms to eliminate competition for aftermarket and other complementary services in these ecosystems. This paper, available here, analyses whether competition law can help address problems concerning access to data and interoperability in this context, by reference to connected vehicles. In short, it argues that, while competition offers some solutions to these data access problems, on its own it is insufficient to fully address these problems. As such, additional solutions such as data portability requirements, data access rights or sector-specific regulation might also be needed. Section II provides a brief overview of the economics of digital ecosystems and of data interoperability. Data tends to be non-rivalrous in use. It follows that data should be used as much as possible to maximise its value….

Peter Georg Picht and Gaspare Tazio Loderer on ‘Framing Algorithms: Competition Law and (Other) Regulatory Tools’ (2019) World Competition 42(3) 391

Algorithmic market conduct, and intervene where algorithms risk distorting competition. In effect, the collusive potential of algorithms and algorithm-driven resale pricing have already been the subject of enforcement. However, it is still not clear whether competition law has, in its present form, the necessary tools and techniques adequately to control algorithms. This article, available here, looks at what other areas of the law, which are more advanced in this respect, can teach competition law. Its second section looks at how financial markets regulation and data protection law deal with algorithm-based market activity. Financial markets were among the first to deploy algorithms broadly and intensely. As a result, financial market regulation developed a comparatively detailed set of rules on algorithmic trading early on. European data protection law is another area that already has in place certain elements of a legal framework for algorithmic (market) activity. This includes the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Regulation. These two regulatory regimes share…

Paolo Siciliani ‘Tackling Anticompetitive Parallel Conduct under Personalized Pricing’ (2019) World Competition 42(3) 377

From an economic standpoint, personalised pricing is not a novel (theoretical) concept. However, this practice has become topical thanks to digital technological developments that make it actually feasible, even if there is very little evidence that the feasibility of personalised pricing has led to its widespread implementation so far. The current debate explores the circumstances in which intervention under not only competition law, but also consumer law and data protection law, would be warranted. The focus is primarily on exploitative outcomes under imperfect competition, whereby firms with substantial market power charge consumers high prices that could be deemed excessive and/or unfair. There is a consensus that enforcement against such practices would be challenging. For example, it is not straightforward to establish under a consumer welfare standard that consumers are in aggregate worse-off under personalised pricing. This is because personalised pricing can entail lower prices for consumers who would otherwise not buy the product in question, thus leading to a welfare…

Friso Bostoen ‘Online Platforms and Pricing: Adapting abuse of dominance assessments to the economic reality of free products’ (2019) Computer Law and Security Review 35 263

What sets platforms apart is their possibility to effectively cross-subsidise between the different user groups that are party to a transaction. Platforms often treat one side as a profit centre and the other as a loss leader, or, at best, as financially neutral. As a result, platforms must choose not only a price level, but also a price structure for their service. Given this,  the present article, available here, explores how potentially abusive behaviour involving free products (both goods and services) can be assessed under competition law. Section II looks at different dimensions of offering free goods and services. Free online offerings have become ubiquitous. This reflects lower costs brought about by the existing digital infrastructure (e.g. processing power, bandwidth, storage). However, companies still want to make a profit. In practice, offering services for free has the potential to attract the critical mass of customers that will allow a company to maximise its profits across its various products. There are three…

David S. Evans  ‘Basic principles for the design of antitrust analysis for multisided platforms’ (2019) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 7 319

Competition agencies and courts have increasingly had to deal with multiplatform businesses – and have started to incorporate economic insights on their operation into their decisions. Nonetheless, many questions concerning the design of antitrust analysis involving platform businesses remain unsettled. This article, available here, develops three basic principles for conducting the antitrust analysis of multisided platforms in light of economic learning, as follows: Section II explains how multisided platforms increase welfare by reducing transactions costs and resolving externalities among economic agents. Platforms lower transaction costs by bringing potential traders to a common place for interacting, thereby solving a collective action problem. The economics literature often relies on simple indirect network effects to explain how two-sided platforms create value. Positive indirect network externalities arise because the presence of additional numbers of the right counterparties increases the likelihood of good exchanges. In practice, however, the externality issues addressed by platforms are broader and subtler. Platforms also often deal with negative network externalities…

Peter Alexiadis and Alexandre de Streel  ‘Designing an EU Intervention Standard for Digital Gatekeepers’ (working paper)

This paper is quite long and dense, so I am afraid this review will be both as well. A series of studies and reports on digital platforms have suggested that antitrust policy requires an overhaul. This view is driven by the belief that, as regards digital markets, the risk of making “Type 2” errors (i.e., under-enforcement) is greater than the risk of making “Type 1” errors (i.e., over-enforcement); and that, in addition to competition enforcement, there may be a role for regulation as well. While the authors take the view that the imperative for radical change is less pressing in the European Union than elsewhere, it is nonetheless appropriate to develop a blueprint for intervention against digital platforms both ex post and ex ante. This blueprint is developed as follows: A first section outlines the principles governing when to intervene in the digital economy. The Internet has generated significant levels of consumer welfare. Digital markets nevertheless have characteristics which lend…

Ariel Ezrachi and Viktoria Robertson ‘Competition, Market Power and Third-Party Tracking’ (2019) World Competition 42(1) 5

Trackers on our websites and apps enable multi-sourced data gathering. While numerous operators engage in tracking, a small number of data giants controls the majority of these trackers. This article, available here, considers the rise and growth of this industry, the power it has bestowed on a handful of platforms, and the possible implications for consumer welfare and competition. Section 2 describes the pervasiveness of third-party tracking. Third-party tracking is a mechanism through which a company (the third-party tracker) hooks onto another (first-party) website or application and collects identifiable data about users, enabling the tracker to build a comprehensive profile about these users. Tracking may occur both actively and passively. It may offer generic information on usage and webpage visits, or combined and analysed information which enables the identification of the individual. The gathering of personalised data – through third-party tracking or otherwise – is primarily relied upon for four purposes in the digital realm: to provide data-based (i.e. individualized or targeted)…

The Common Understanding of G7 Competition Authorities on “Competition and the Digital Economy”

While adopted on 5 June, this communique was embargoed until yesterday. It can now be found here. As it says on the tin, this document reflects the common position that the competition authorities in the G7 countries (namely, the Autoritá Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Italy), the Autorité de la Concurrence (France), the Bundeskartellamt (Germany), the Competition Bureau (Canada), the Competition and Markets Authority (United Kingdom), the Department of Justice (United States of America), the Directorate General for Competition (European Commission), the Federal Trade Commission (United States of America) and the Japan Fair Trade Commission (Japan)) have reached on the digital economy. It may come as no surprise that the level of agreement is relatively thin, and that the document does not go into the most controversial topics addressed in the reports reviewed last week and further below. The common understanding begins with the mandatory section on the benefits of the digital economy. Investment and innovation in the digital…

UK CMA’s Digital Market Strategy

The CMA’s Digital Market Strategy, available here, could be said to be a reaction to the Furman Report reviewed last week,  even if the official reaction took the form of a shorter and earlier letter to Government which can be found here. The paper begins by describing why digital markets are different and how the CMA sees its role in their respect. The underlying features of digital markets include substantial network effects, economies of scale and scope, the role of data and the computing power to use it, scope for personalisation, and market concentration. Most of these are not new individually, but in combination they are novel. Combined with the pace of change, it can be hard for both consumers and public authorities to keep up. Some of these features, or their effects, raise questions, including: firms’ use of people’s data; the market power or ‘gatekeeper’ status of certain platforms; use of increasingly sophisticated technology to target advertising; or the risk of so-called ‘killer acquisitions’. The…