Vikas Kathuria and Jure Globocnik ‘Exclusionary conduct in data-driven markets: limitations of data sharing remedies’ (2020) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 8 511

By depriving its rivals of gaining scale in data, a dominant player can successfully exploit demand-side scale economies, i.e. network effects, to its benefit in a two-sided market. In effect, dominant undertakings may be able to exclude their rivals from accessing user data and thus deprive them of scale in markets that are characterised by network effects. In the face of exclusionary conduct by a dominant undertaking in data-driven markets, a critical question relates to the nature of the remedy that can offset the harm to consumer welfare and restore competition. Intuitively, mandating a delinquent dominant undertaking to share wrongly withheld data appears to be an optimal remedy. This article, , available here, analyses the viability of mandatory data sharing as a remedy to restore competition in the affected market – and concludes that mandatory data sharing is not the optimal solution to remedy loss to consumer welfare. Section 2 considers the objectives of remedies in EU competition law. To…

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ali Kağan Uҫar and Zeynep Buharali ‘Data-Related Abuses in Competition Law’ in Standing Up for Convergence and Relevance in Antitrust – Frédéric Jenny Liber Amicorum – Volume I (eds. Ahmad and Charbit, 2019) Concurrences

Data has become an indispensable business tool, and, as a result, the collection and use of data by dominant undertakings can give rise to competition law concerns. This article, available here, examines data-related abuses in competition law, and seeks to provide an overview of specific types of abuses arising from the use of data. Section II looks at the definition of data. Data is often defined as “information that can be stored and used by a computer program.” Accordingly, “big data” refers to “large amounts of different types of data produced at high speed from multiple sources, requiring new and more powerful processors and algorithms to process and to analyse’. As “data” increases in volume, diversifies in nature and content, and keeps on flowing rapidly through the veins of the global economy, its collection and processing creates increasingly valuable commercial opportunities. Undertakings more and more see data as an indispensable tool for improving business decisions and strategies, and for improving…

Björn Lundqvist ‘Regulating competition in the digital economy’ in Competition Law for the Digital Economy (ed. Björn Lundqvist and Michal S. Gal) (2019, Elgar)

There is an intense academic discussion regarding whether consumers and business users are exposed to conduct that may amount to competition law abuses when using Internet services. The discussion is connected to the Internet phenomenon of ‘platforms’ or intermediaries. The multitude of direct customer–supplier transactions making up everyday business conduct are, to an increasing degree, replaced on the Internet by an intermediary, the platform, matching the customer with the supplier. Platforms are able to perform role because they provide efficient and easy matching. Further, internet platforms may, due to certain special and somewhat unique characteristics – like network effects, tipping and path dependency – become central ‘hubs’ between purchasers and suppliers. This chapter, available here, focuses on the application of competition law vis-à-vis the platforms collecting personal and non-personal data. It considers questions such as: may competition law be used to gain access to intermediaries’ data, and the infrastructure around that data? May competition law be used to limit the…

Klaus Wiedemann ‘A Matter of Choice: The German Federal Supreme Court’s Interim Decision in the Abuse-of-Dominance Proceedings Bundeskartellamt v. Facebook (Case KVR 69/19)’ (2020) IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law volume 51 1168

In June 2020, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) upheld the 2019 interim decision of the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) ordering Facebook to stop collecting data about its users without their consent when they use apps and visit websites outside Facebook’s social network.Importantly, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that Facebook’s data collection was an abuse of its dominance in the (German) market for personal social networks, overruling an earlier decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf). This piece, available here, explores the relevance of the case – and the courts’ different decisions – from a number of perspectives. Section II describes the Facebook case, up to the Supreme Federal Court’s judgment. In February 2019, the Bundeskartellamt found that Facebook was dominant on the market for social networks, and had abused this position by imposing terms of service allowing it: (i) to collect its users’ personal data (and data related to their terminal devices) from outside the actual social…

Rachel Scheele ‘Facebook: From Data Privacy to a Concept of Abuse by Restriction of Choice’ (2021) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 12(1) 34

On 23 June 2020, the German Federal Supreme Court found that Facebook violated German competition law by abusing its dominance in the market for social networks. The ruling, upholding the decision by the competition authority, is a major victory for advocates of addressing data-related competition concerns under Article 102 TFEU and its national equivalents. However, instead of focusing on the intersection between competition and data protection law in its reasoning, as the competition authority had, the Federal Supreme Court relied on the concept of restriction of consumer choice. This article, available here, casts light on the Facebook case and its practical relevance. Section 2 reviews the Facebook infringement decision. In 2019, the German Bundeskartellamt found that Facebook had abused its dominant position on the German market for personal social networks by imposing unfair terms and conditions on its users. The Bundeskartellamt’s case linked antitrust violations with data protection law, and relied on alleged infringements of the EU’s General Data Protection…

Stefan Thomas ‘Harmful Signals: Cartel Prohibition and Oligopoly Theory in the Age of Machine Learning’ (2019) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 15 (2-3) 159

Information can be used by competitors to collude or to compete, and the challenge for competition law is to spot the differences. Signalling and any other type of informational exchange outside the scope of cartels are an emanation of tacit collusion. Tacit collusion, however, is generally considered unobjectionable, because firms are deemed to have the right to adapt intelligently to their rivals’ conduct. The law puts different labels on what is ultimately the same economic phenomenon, that is, conduct that leads to supra-competitive outcomes. The traditional legal approach for distinguishing between illicit collusion and legitimate oligopoly conduct is to rely on criteria that relate to the means and form of how rivals interact, such as elements of “practical cooperation” or findings of anticompetitive intent. This article, available here, contends that, outside the scope of classic cartel agreements, it is not possible to properly distinguish between illicit collusion and legitimate independent conduct by relying on proxies such as elements of practical…

Competition and Markets Authority ‘Regulation and Competition – A Review of the Evidence’ (2020)

It is well established that effective competition is a key mechanism for improving outcomes for consumers. There is a concern that regulation can have the effect of stifling competition, and thereby deprive customers of these benefits, for example through raising barriers to entry. At the same time, different forms of regulation have an important role to play in supporting competition, for example by providing the legal and economic frameworks within which competition takes place. It is therefore important to take into account the benefits as well as the costs when considering the impact of regulation. The purpose of this report, available here, is to summarise existing evidence about the impact of regulation on competition, both in terms of the academic research and the way in which regulation is designed and implemented in practice. It does so as follows: Section 2 introduces the topic. Competition and regulation are sometimes portrayed as mutually exclusive; for instance, either you have competition policy to…

Niamh Dunne ‘Dispensing with Indispensability’ (2020) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 16(1) 74

‘Indispensability’ is the central concept underpinning the treatment of refusal to deal claims under EU competition law. Firms can normally refuse to share their infrastructure with would-be competitors, to supply an input, or to licence their intellectual property. Where the requested access is, however, deemed indispensable to effective competition in an adjacent market—an exceptional circumstance—dominant undertakings may find their default market freedom constrained, the rationale being that control of such an essential facility renders any refusal to deal disproportionately harmful. However, the conventional wisdom that instances of refusal to deal constitute an abuse only in the presence of indispensability has been challenged from multiple directions. This article, available here, surveys the departures from the orthodoxy that can be found in the jurisprudence. Section II introduces refusal to supply as an antitrust theory of harm. It has long been acknowledged that Article 102 TFEU may, in certain instances, proscribe refusals to contract with rivals by dominant undertakings. Yet refusal to deal…

Alec Burnside and Adam Kidane ‘Common Ownership: A EU Perspective’ (2020) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 8 456

This article, available here, examines common ownership through a European lens. The article considers whether the theory of harm flowing from common ownership is sufficiently robust to provide a basis for enforcement, and (if so) whether current European Union competition law tools could be used to that end. The authors argue that it is premature to draw any conclusions as to whether common ownership concerns justify competition enforcement. In any event, levels of common ownership seem to be lower in Europe than in the US, so it is unclear whether intervention would be justified in the EU even if it were in the US. Until a better understanding of the underlying facts and a broad academic consensus emerge, reform prescriptions that have been advanced will remain a solution in search of a problem. Section II describes the common ownership theory of harm. The authors begin by distinguishing between cross-shareholding and common ownership. Cross-ownership arises where one firm acquires a non-controlling…

Einer Elhauge ‘How Horizontal Shareholding Harms Our Economy—And Why Antitrust Law Can Fix It’ (2020) 10 Harvard Business Law Review 10(2) 207

This article, available here, argues that new economic proofs and empirical evidence show that horizontal shareholding in concentrated markets often has anticompetitive effect. The piece also develops new legal theories for tackling the problem of horizontal shareholding. When horizontal shareholding has anticompetitive effects, it is illegal not only under Clayton Act §7, but also under Sherman Act §1. Anticompetitive horizontal shareholding also constitutes an illegal agreement or concerted practice under EU Treaty Article 101, as well as an abuse of collective dominance under Article 102. Part I describes how new proofs and empirical evidence have confirmed that high levels of horizontal shareholding in concentrated product markets can have anticompetitive effects, even when each individual horizontal shareholder has a minority stake. The last few years have seen a deluge of studies – involving economic modelling and empirical research – demonstrating how overlapping horizontal shareholding can lead to anticompetitive effect, even when each individual horizontal shareholder has a minority stake and without…