Market Investigations for Digital Platforms: Panacea or Complement?

Amelia Fletcher
{"title":"Market Investigations for Digital Platforms: Panacea or Complement?","authors":"Amelia Fletcher","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3668289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing international consensus that standard competition law is inadequate for addressing the panoply of competition problems arising in digital platform markets. Alongside a proposal for ex ante regulation in this arena, the European Commission is considering the introduction of a ‘New Competition Tool’ which is broadly modelled on the UK Market Investigation instrument. \n \nThis paper abstracts from the specifics of the EU situation and considers the pros and cons of market investigations in the context of the UK regime. It concludes that the tool is a valuable addition to the standard competition law toolkit, and that this is likely to be true also at EU level, both for digital platforms and more widely. However, because the tool is potentially so powerful and flexible, it merits strong procedural checks and balances, to guard against confirmation bias or politicisation. The tool also has important limitations and thus should not be viewed as a full solution to the issues raised by digital platforms, but rather as a valuable complementary tool alongside new ex ante regulation. Interoperability is discussed as one area where the tools may act in a complementary way.","PeriodicalId":434487,"journal":{"name":"European Economics: Microeconomics & Industrial Organization eJournal","volume":"7 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Economics: Microeconomics & Industrial Organization eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3668289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

There is a growing international consensus that standard competition law is inadequate for addressing the panoply of competition problems arising in digital platform markets. Alongside a proposal for ex ante regulation in this arena, the European Commission is considering the introduction of a ‘New Competition Tool’ which is broadly modelled on the UK Market Investigation instrument. This paper abstracts from the specifics of the EU situation and considers the pros and cons of market investigations in the context of the UK regime. It concludes that the tool is a valuable addition to the standard competition law toolkit, and that this is likely to be true also at EU level, both for digital platforms and more widely. However, because the tool is potentially so powerful and flexible, it merits strong procedural checks and balances, to guard against confirmation bias or politicisation. The tool also has important limitations and thus should not be viewed as a full solution to the issues raised by digital platforms, but rather as a valuable complementary tool alongside new ex ante regulation. Interoperability is discussed as one area where the tools may act in a complementary way.
数字平台市场调查:灵丹妙药还是补充?
越来越多的国际共识认为,标准的竞争法不足以解决数字平台市场中出现的各种竞争问题。除了在这一领域进行事前监管的建议外,欧盟委员会正在考虑引入一种“新竞争工具”,该工具广泛模仿英国市场调查工具。本文从欧盟情况的具体内容中抽象出来,并考虑了英国制度背景下市场调查的利弊。它的结论是,该工具是标准竞争法工具包的一个有价值的补充,而且在欧盟层面,无论是数字平台还是更广泛的领域,这可能也是正确的。然而,由于该工具可能非常强大和灵活,它需要强有力的程序制衡,以防止确认偏见或政治化。该工具也有重要的局限性,因此不应被视为数字平台提出的问题的全面解决方案,而是作为新的事前监管的有价值的补充工具。互操作性是作为工具可以以互补方式发挥作用的一个领域来讨论的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信