Introduction and Synopsis

Q2 Social Sciences
Ioannis P. Kokkoris, Claudia Lemus
{"title":"Introduction and Synopsis","authors":"Ioannis P. Kokkoris, Claudia Lemus","doi":"10.1177/0003603X221126127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considering the emerging consensus that traditional antitrust enforcement tools may not be fully successful in addressing concerns raised by the development of the digital economy, key stakeholders across the world are making great efforts to address the issue. In particular, the legislative initiatives of the European Union (EU) have been prominent in this area. The United States has belatedly shown signs that there are concerns about concentrated economic power in digital markets and antitrust is being portrayed as an effective means to address the adverse consequences on competition. In China, regulators have recently expanded their remit on competition enforcement in digital markets. The strengthening of regulatory actions against digital platforms has also echoed across the globe, including in jurisdictions such as Australia and Brazil. Yet, even if all these efforts are remarkable, it is still yet unclear whether the variety of the proposed interventions would tackle the competition enforcement challenges posed by digital platforms and whether there is disparity of enforcement approaches that creates its own challenges for the companies involved in the digital sector. In the EU, after months of stakeholder consultations and internal debate, in December 2020 the European Commission (EC) presented the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is aimed to control a range of anticompetitive conducts of large online platforms (LoPs) and to ensure the expansion of European platforms in fair and contestable markets. In other words, the DMA is intended to create a level playing field on which European tech firms can compete against America’s tech giants. Recently, on July 18, 2022, the DMA was approved by the Council of the EU and is expected to inspire regulatory intervention in other jurisdictions. Hence, the DMA constitutes an ex ante regulatory regime that places the EC as the digital regulator and includes an exhaustive list of rigid obligations and prohibitions that need to be observed by designated gatekeepers. A company is presumed to be a gatekeeper if it meets the qualitative and quantitative criteria set out in the provision. According to Margrethe Vestager, the Commissioner for Competition, without these rules “others will not get room to grow.”1 Perhaps, but it may also happen that firms would feel discouraged to expand to the point where they may be subject to the DMA. Paradoxically, an instrument that has been created with the intention of spurring growth and innovation could lead to having an adverse impact on","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"499 - 503"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X221126127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considering the emerging consensus that traditional antitrust enforcement tools may not be fully successful in addressing concerns raised by the development of the digital economy, key stakeholders across the world are making great efforts to address the issue. In particular, the legislative initiatives of the European Union (EU) have been prominent in this area. The United States has belatedly shown signs that there are concerns about concentrated economic power in digital markets and antitrust is being portrayed as an effective means to address the adverse consequences on competition. In China, regulators have recently expanded their remit on competition enforcement in digital markets. The strengthening of regulatory actions against digital platforms has also echoed across the globe, including in jurisdictions such as Australia and Brazil. Yet, even if all these efforts are remarkable, it is still yet unclear whether the variety of the proposed interventions would tackle the competition enforcement challenges posed by digital platforms and whether there is disparity of enforcement approaches that creates its own challenges for the companies involved in the digital sector. In the EU, after months of stakeholder consultations and internal debate, in December 2020 the European Commission (EC) presented the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is aimed to control a range of anticompetitive conducts of large online platforms (LoPs) and to ensure the expansion of European platforms in fair and contestable markets. In other words, the DMA is intended to create a level playing field on which European tech firms can compete against America’s tech giants. Recently, on July 18, 2022, the DMA was approved by the Council of the EU and is expected to inspire regulatory intervention in other jurisdictions. Hence, the DMA constitutes an ex ante regulatory regime that places the EC as the digital regulator and includes an exhaustive list of rigid obligations and prohibitions that need to be observed by designated gatekeepers. A company is presumed to be a gatekeeper if it meets the qualitative and quantitative criteria set out in the provision. According to Margrethe Vestager, the Commissioner for Competition, without these rules “others will not get room to grow.”1 Perhaps, but it may also happen that firms would feel discouraged to expand to the point where they may be subject to the DMA. Paradoxically, an instrument that has been created with the intention of spurring growth and innovation could lead to having an adverse impact on
引言和简介
考虑到传统的反垄断执法工具可能无法完全成功地解决数字经济发展带来的担忧,世界各地的主要利益相关者正在努力解决这一问题。特别是,欧洲联盟(欧盟)的立法举措在这一领域表现突出。美国姗姗来迟地显示出对数字市场集中经济实力的担忧,反垄断被描述为解决竞争不利后果的有效手段。在中国,监管机构最近扩大了在数字市场竞争执法方面的职权范围。加强针对数字平台的监管行动也在全球范围内引起了反响,包括在澳大利亚和巴西等司法管辖区。然而,即使所有这些努力都很了不起,但仍不清楚拟议的各种干预措施是否能应对数字平台带来的竞争执法挑战,以及执法方法是否存在差异,这给参与数字行业的公司带来了自身的挑战。在欧盟,经过数月的利益相关者协商和内部辩论,欧盟委员会于2020年12月提出了《数字市场法》,旨在控制大型在线平台的一系列反竞争行为,并确保欧洲平台在公平和有竞争力的市场中扩张。换言之,DMA旨在创造一个公平的竞争环境,让欧洲科技公司能够与美国科技巨头竞争。最近,2022年7月18日,DMA获得了欧盟理事会的批准,预计将激励其他司法管辖区的监管干预。因此,DMA构成了一个事前监管制度,将EC作为数字监管机构,并包括指定看门人需要遵守的严格义务和禁令的详尽清单。如果一家公司符合该条款规定的定性和定量标准,则该公司被视为看门人。根据竞争事务专员Margrethe Vestager的说法,如果没有这些规则,“其他公司将没有发展的空间。”1也许,但也可能发生的是,公司会感到气馁,不愿扩张到可能受到DMA约束的地步。矛盾的是,一个旨在刺激增长和创新的工具可能会对
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
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信