Viktoria Robertson on ‘Excessive Data Collection: Privacy Considerations and Abuse of Dominance in the Era of Big Data’ (2020) Common Market Law Review 57 161

It is debatable whether EU competition law already contains – or could and should potentially develop – antitrust theories of harm that apply to third-party tracking of personal user data on the web. Focusing on data gathering, this paper – available here – assesses two scenarios under which EU competition law may deem the vast amounts of data gathered by certain digital platforms excessive: excessive data “prices” and unfair data policies. In both cases, the competition law assessment is autonomous from other areas of the law: while a breach of data protection rules is not automatically a breach of competition law, a company adhering to data protection rules may still violate competition laws. The paper finds that EU competition law already possesses the necessary tools to address excessive data collection, while data protection rules provide much-needed context for this type of exploitative abuse. Section II discusses data gathering through third-party tracking. Tracking occurs both on the web and in applications (apps) for electronic…

Marco Botta and Klaus Wiedemann  ‘To Discriminate or not to Discriminate? Personalised Pricing in Online Markets as Exploitative Abuse of Dominance’ (2019) European Journal of Law and Economics 1

The advent of big data analytics has favoured the emergence of forms of price discrimination based on consumers’ profiles and their online behaviour (i.e. personalised pricing). This paper, available here, analyses this practice as a possible exploitative abuse by dominant online platforms. It concludes that such practices can have ambiguous welfare effects, and be subject to a case-by-case analysis. It also argues that competition law is more suitable than omnibus regulation – particularly data protection and consumer law – to tackle the negative effects of personalised pricing, particularly because competition authorities could negotiate with online platforms different kinds of behavioural commitments that could significantly tame the risks of personalised pricing. Section II looks at price discrimination in online markets. Economists typically distinguish between three different types of price discrimination. First-degree price discrimination takes place when a firm is able to discriminate perfectly among its customers. Second-degree price discrimination means that the firm discriminates between its customers by granting discounts once…

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….

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…

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,…

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…

Marc van der Voude ‘Judicial Control in Complex Economic Matters’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10(7) 415

Already in the early 1960’s, the Court of Justice made clear that the application of competition law depends on contextual analysis that takes a wide range of economic and legal factors into account. Modern economics provides useful tools to deal with competition matters. The European Commission increasingly relies on these ‘mainstream’ economics in its assessment of competition cases, and courts have to make up their own mind on the merits of the Commission’s complex assessments and of the economic concepts on which the Commission relied to that effect. What kind of judicial control are the Union courts supposed to exercise over these complex assessments?  Under the current system set up by Article 263 TFEU, judicial review by the General Court, which has the final say on the interpretation of the facts of the case, is limited to the review of the legality of the Commission’s decision. In its case law, the Court of Justice has traditionally used formulae that suggest…

Massimiliano Kadar ‘Article 102 and Exclusivity Rebates in a Post-Intel World: Lessons from the Qualcomm and Google Android Cases’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10(7) 439

Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits behaviour by a dominant undertaking that is capable of harming competition. The notion of ‘capability to harm competition’ has been at the centre of the legal and economic debate for many years. A strict interpretation of ‘capability’ would require evidence of actual or quasi-actual effects on the market in the form of, for example, the exit of existing competitors or sustained price increases. A lax interpretation of capability could make it possible to enforce competition rules also in circumstances where harm to competition is purely hypothetical and not supported by concrete evidence. This discussion – which is ultimately about the level of the standard of proof – not only influences the likelihood of Type 1 and Type 2 letters, but also the amount of resources that administrative agencies needs to devote to individual enforcement cases. Modulating this impact are presumptions, which can lead to significant savings…

Cani Fernández ‘Presumptions and Burden of Proof in EU Competition Law: The Intel Judgment’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10(7)

Some of the procedural tools used by competition authorities and courts (in particular, presumptions) present an inherent link to the burden of proof and to the rightful exercise of the rights of the defence. In principle, the use of presumptions can be an efficient response to the enforcement of competition policy both in situations where a given behaviour usually amounts to an infringement or where it is competitively innocuous. In any rule of law system, presumptions of illegality must be rebuttable. Indeed, a resort to presumptions not surrounded by proper procedural guarantees may infringe the presumption of innocence and undertakings’ rights of defence. The Intel judgment provides a good opportunity to discuss the role of presumptions under Article 102 TFEU and their implications for the burden of proof. In addition to this, this article, available here, analyses how defendants in exclusivity rebate cases can rebut the presumption of illegality in practice, with a special focus on the efficiency defence. It does so…