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….

Nicolo Zingales ‘Antitrust intent in an age of algorithmic nudging’ (2019) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 7 386

This article, available here, surveys EU case law on the role of anticompetitive intent in abuses of dominance, with the goal of understanding how intent can be relevant to the assignment of liability for anticompetitive algorithmic outcomes. The role of subjective intent in EU antitrust analysis remains controversial. Some argue that evidence of intent is an invaluable tool in the antitrust arsenal, allowing agencies and litigants to address anticompetitive conduct where facts are ambiguous or evidence of harm to competition inconclusive. Others warn against relying on intent. First, ‘sales talks’ encouraging employees to beat – and indeed eliminate – competitors is common and merely indicative of a (competitively desirable) aggressive business strategy. Secondly, banning any exhortation to compete aggressively would encourage firms to deploy more subtle forms of inducement when engaged in anticompetitive conduct, while favouring those with the resources to develop such strategies. The law seems to follow a middle path in this debate, suggesting that the notion of subjective…

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…

Gunnar Niels ‘Transaction Versus Non-Transaction Platforms: A False Dichotomy In Two-Sided Market Definition’ (2019) Journal of Competition Law & Economic

It is commonly accepted that market definition is more complex in two-sided markets than in normal (single-sided) markets. A proposal to simplify this exercise is to distinguish between transaction and non-transaction platforms. Two-sided transaction platforms such as payment card systems, online marketplaces and auction houses, are characterised by the presence and observability of a transaction between the two groups of platform users, so that the platform operator can impose a per transaction charge or two-part tariff (for joining and using the platform). In contrast, non-transaction platforms, including most media platforms, have no such transaction between the two sides. It follows that, while  in non-transaction markets one must define two (interrelated) markets, while a single market encompassing both sides should be defined for transaction platforms. The author argues here that this distinction is inapposite, particularly in the context of the hypothetical monopolist test. This article addresses the various theoretical and practical arguments put forward in support of the distinction between transaction and non-transaction,…

Francesco Ducci ‘Procedural implications of market definition in platform cases’ (2019) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 7 419

One of the most important questions raised by the economics of platforms, particularly for the adjudication of competition law disputes, is how to structure a legal framework that incorporates multi-sidedness while remaining consistent with the general principles guiding a rule of reason/effects-based analysis. Such framework becomes more complex in platform cases because the presence of multiple sides with interrelated demand coordinated by an intermediary platform raises additional questions that need to be confronted. This include: (i) How many markets should be defined, a single platform market or separate markets on each side? (ii) Should one aggregate the welfare effects on different users on the various sides of a platform, or should effects on each market side be treated in isolation? (iii) How should the burden of proof of anticompetitive and pro-competitive effects be allocated? Depending on whether the relevant market includes the platform as a whole or just one side, the boundary of the relevant market has fundamental consequences for…

Alfonso Lamadrid ‘Shortcuts in the Era of Digitisation’ (2019) CPI Antitrust Chronicle – October

Competition law is arguably one of the areas of least importance when it comes to the major societal challenges posed by digitalisation. Nonetheless, competition law has been advertised as a sort of miraculous tool that would right all wrongs. In this context, the idea of entrusting a Report to three independent Special Advisers before advancing a reorientation of the competition rules was a very sensible initiative on the part of the European Commission. However, the author does not really agree with the report’s conclusions. He explain why in a paper that can be found here. Section two discusses what are the specific problems that digital markets raise for competition law. The first question to ask is whether there is consensus about competition problems in digital markets. If the answer is in the affirmative, we then need to ask whether we can address those problems while still preserving the benefits flowing from digitisation. The Report and other similarly-timed initiatives suggest that there…

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…