Antitrust Bulletin

Publisher:: Sage Publications, Inc.
Publication date:: 2021-08-12

ISBN:: 0003-603X

Issue Number

Latest documents

Who’s Afraid of Conglomerate Mergers?
Conglomerate merger control went out of fashion in the United States and the European Union several decades ago. Both jurisdictions embraced the premise that nonhorizontal mergers should normally be considered benign because exclusionary theories of harm are economically implausible, and nonhorizontal mergers are almost always certain to result in significant efficiency effects that the merged entity can be expected to pass on to consumers. Conglomerate effects analysis subsequently all but disappeared from the enforcement practice. However, the emergence of a handful of powerful digital platforms with vast global ecosystems of interconnected services is currently causing competition agencies a great deal of concern. Their growth has not been entirely internal. Collectively, Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Amazon, and Apple have acquired over eight hundred companies. Many of their targets were innovative start-ups operating in complementary markets. This contribution compares and critically assesses how this development has affected the U.S., EU, and U.K. competition agencies’ approach to conglomerate merger control. It finds that, as a reaction to the advent of Big Tech, conglomerate effects analysis has made a significant comeback in EU merger control. While the U.S. and U.K. authorities have not yet intervened against any conglomerate acquisitions in practice, evidence suggests that they are also more open to nonhorizontal theories of harm again.
Pro-competition Regulation in the Digital Economy: The United Kingdom’s Digital Markets Unit
The United Kingdom, like many jurisdictions, is introducing more demanding ex ante regulation for the digital economy. Centered on the work of a Digital Markets Unit located within the existing copetition authority, the U.K. proposals are defined by an explicit commitment to “pro-competition” regulation. This article traces the evolution and emerging design of the forthcoming U.K. regime. It then explores the notion of pro-competition regulation in greater detail. While the concept increasingly transcends its domestic origins, this article argues that the balancing act between conventional competition law and traditional regulation that it reflects can be fully understood only when located within the distinctive circumstances of the wider U.K. regulatory landscape.
The Incursion of Antitrust into China’s Platform Economy
This article adopts a holistic approach to China’s antitrust strategy toward the platform economy. As enforcers everywhere come to terms with the unique challenges posed by the market power amassed by digital gatekeepers, China’s sudden, fierce attack on its own tech giants has been as effective as it has been baffling to observers, and has helped antitrust policy progress by leaps and bounds. However, antitrust is only one of several battlefields of the war on platforms. This article first dissects the competition law developments that have taken place in the first year of China’s “Big Tech crackdown,” focusing on enforcement, policymaking, and law and institutional reform. Thereafter, this article joins the dots and assesses the results of the (partly) Big Tech-motivated refurbishment of the Chinese antitrust law and policy landscape. It identifies certain risks stemming from the new reinforced system, and proposes ways circumvent these and reap the benefits of the improved legal framework.
Self-Preferencing and Competitive Damages: A Focus on Exploitative Abuses
Conceived as a theory of competitive harm, self-preferencing has been at the core of recent European landmark cases (e.g., Google Android, Google Shopping). In the context of EU competition law, beyond the anticompetitive leveraging effect, self-preferencing may lead to vertical and horizontal exclusionary abuses, encourage exploitation abuses, and generate economic dependence abuses. In this paper, we aim at characterizing the various forms of self-preferencing, investigating platforms’ capacity and incentives to do so through their dual role, by shedding light on the economic assessment of these practices in an effects-based approach. We analyze the different options for remedies in this context, by insisting on their necessity, adequacy, and proportionality.
Antitrust, Big Tech, and Democracy: A Research Agenda
In the twenty-first century, voter choice and the broader political debate are within the reach of those that can access and channel the vast streams of user data that are generated online. How digital platforms utilize personal user data to influence the outcome of democratic processes has become a central issue that liberal democracies must confront. The paper explores whether competition law has a role to play when it comes to addressing this intersection of Big Tech, data, and democracy. It first sets out the democratic roots of competition or antitrust law in the United States and the European Union. From these, the paper deduces that competition law cannot remain inactive when it comes to maintaining a democratic society in the face of the abilities of Big Tech to influence democratic processes and outcomes. The paper then goes a step further and asks what role competition law could play in this regard. Should democratic values simply be reflected in the procedural set-up of antitrust law, or is there a role for democratic values in the substantive provisions as well? And if so, does antitrust law’s focus on keeping market power in check suffice to fulfill its role in a democratic society, or does this role require the law to specifically target antidemocratic market behavior as anticompetitive harm? In navigating these questions, the paper contributes to the ongoing debate on political antitrust and sets out an ambitious research agenda on how to carry this discussion forward.
Taming Tech Giants
Taming Tech Giants: The Neglected Interplay Between Competition Law and Data Protection (Privacy) Law
The debate about the economic power of large tech firms has led to the insight that due to the key role of personal data on large digital platforms competition and privacy issues are deeply intertwined. This leads also to a complex relationship between competition law and data protection (or privacy) law, and—also from an economic perspective—the need for policy-makers to take into account the interplay between both legal regimes. This article analyzes current discussions about (1) how to integrate privacy effects into traditional competition law and (2) the far-reaching reform discussions about taming the power of the large tech firms, for example, the Digital Markets Act in the European Union or the new antitrust discussion in the United States, with respect to the question whether and to what extent they take into account this interplay between competition policy and data protection (or privacy) law. It is surprising that also the second reform discussion, which directly intends to target the power of the large tech firms, does not take into account sufficiently this interplay and the ensuing need for a more collaborative approach between these policies. Therefore, the opportunities of developing a more effective joint strategy for achieving better both competition and privacy are still missed.
Reshaping Digital Competition: The New Platform Regulations and the Future of Modern Antitrust
This article reflects on the way in which the new initiatives to regulate powerful online platforms in the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany challenge well-established fundamentals of modern antitrust and thereby reshape the future of competition law. It shows that the new platform regulations set in motion a profound transformation of modern antitrust law that operates along four parameters. First, the new platform regulations unsettle the long-standing baseline assumption that the maximization of consumer welfare constitutes competition law’s core mission. Second, the new instruments repudiate the orthodox understanding of error costs that advocates under-enforcement as the optimal standard of intervention in innovation-driven markets. Third, by relying primarily on rule-like presumptions as legal commands to regulate digital competition, the new platform regulations reverse the trend toward an increasingly inductive mode of analysis that characterized modern antitrust under the “more economic” or “effects-based” approach. Fourth, the new platform regulations also fundamentally diverge from a purely probabilistic standard of proof which requires the showing that impugned conduct is more likely than not to cause anticompetitive harm. The reconfiguration of modern antitrust along these four vectors, the article concludes, foreshadows a new, more inclusive model of innovation and growth in digital markets.
Taming Tech Giants
Taming Tech Giants: The Neglected Interplay Between Competition Law and Data Protection (Privacy) Law
The debate about the economic power of large tech firms has led to the insight that due to the key role of personal data on large digital platforms competition and privacy issues are deeply intertwined. This leads also to a complex relationship between competition law and data protection (or privacy) law, and—also from an economic perspective—the need for policy-makers to take into account the interplay between both legal regimes. This article analyzes current discussions about (1) how to integrate privacy effects into traditional competition law and (2) the far-reaching reform discussions about taming the power of the large tech firms, for example, the Digital Markets Act in the European Union or the new antitrust discussion in the United States, with respect to the question whether and to what extent they take into account this interplay between competition policy and data protection (or privacy) law. It is surprising that also the second reform discussion, which directly intends to target the power of the large tech firms, does not take into account sufficiently this interplay and the ensuing need for a more collaborative approach between these policies. Therefore, the opportunities of developing a more effective joint strategy for achieving better both competition and privacy are still missed.