Understanding the Digital Markets Act

Q2 Social Sciences
Friso Bostoen
{"title":"Understanding the Digital Markets Act","authors":"Friso Bostoen","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231162998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In September 2022, the European Union (EU) legislature adopted the Digital Markets Act (DMA)—a landmark piece of regulation with the potential to transform the digital economy in Europe and beyond. Even after adoption, however, questions remain about its stated goals, underlying assumptions, scope, obligations, and eventual effectiveness. This article examines these questions using EU competition law not as a touchstone but as a reference point. First, the DMA’s goals of “fairness” and “contestability” can be more accurately restated as the protection of intra-platform and the promotion of inter-platform competition. Second, the DMA is based on the idea that the enforcement of the abuse of dominance provision, Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is ineffective both procedurally (due to lengthy investigations and remedial issues) and substantively (due to the difficulty of establishing dominance and abuse)—two assumptions that must be tested by examining competition law’s track record. Third, the scope of the DMA is built around the concept of “gatekeepers,” which are in turn defined based on turnover, market capitalization, and active users. Is this an application of the resurgent “big is bad” ideology or a proxy for market power? Fourth, the DMA imposes a list of dos and don’ts on gatekeepers, many of which are inspired by past or ongoing antitrust investigations. Does this experience justify the far-reaching obligations and if so, are they sufficiently flexible to allow for procompetitive gatekeeper conduct? Finally, the DMA is based on the idea that large online platforms have not continued to deliver the desired innovation outcomes and have reaped more than their fair share of the rewards from the innovation they brought. This assumption is tested by a historical look at Apple’s App Store—the most important innovation platform to arise in the digital economy.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"263 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","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/10.1177/0003603X231162998","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

In September 2022, the European Union (EU) legislature adopted the Digital Markets Act (DMA)—a landmark piece of regulation with the potential to transform the digital economy in Europe and beyond. Even after adoption, however, questions remain about its stated goals, underlying assumptions, scope, obligations, and eventual effectiveness. This article examines these questions using EU competition law not as a touchstone but as a reference point. First, the DMA’s goals of “fairness” and “contestability” can be more accurately restated as the protection of intra-platform and the promotion of inter-platform competition. Second, the DMA is based on the idea that the enforcement of the abuse of dominance provision, Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is ineffective both procedurally (due to lengthy investigations and remedial issues) and substantively (due to the difficulty of establishing dominance and abuse)—two assumptions that must be tested by examining competition law’s track record. Third, the scope of the DMA is built around the concept of “gatekeepers,” which are in turn defined based on turnover, market capitalization, and active users. Is this an application of the resurgent “big is bad” ideology or a proxy for market power? Fourth, the DMA imposes a list of dos and don’ts on gatekeepers, many of which are inspired by past or ongoing antitrust investigations. Does this experience justify the far-reaching obligations and if so, are they sufficiently flexible to allow for procompetitive gatekeeper conduct? Finally, the DMA is based on the idea that large online platforms have not continued to deliver the desired innovation outcomes and have reaped more than their fair share of the rewards from the innovation they brought. This assumption is tested by a historical look at Apple’s App Store—the most important innovation platform to arise in the digital economy.
理解数字市场法案
2022年9月,欧盟(EU)立法机构通过了《数字市场法案》(DMA),这是一项具有里程碑意义的法规,有可能改变欧洲及其他地区的数字经济。然而,即使在采用之后,关于其声明的目标、潜在的假设、范围、义务和最终有效性的问题仍然存在。本文以欧盟竞争法为参照点,而不是作为试金石来考察这些问题。首先,DMA的“公平”和“可竞争性”的目标可以更准确地重新表述为保护平台内和促进平台间竞争。其次,DMA是基于这样一种观点,即欧盟运作条约(TFEU)第102条滥用支配地位条款的执行在程序上(由于冗长的调查和补救问题)和实质上(由于确立支配地位和滥用的困难)都是无效的——这两个假设必须通过检查竞争法的记录来检验。第三,DMA的范围是围绕“看门人”的概念构建的,而“看门人”又是根据营业额、市值和活跃用户来定义的。这是复兴的“大即是坏”意识形态的应用,还是市场力量的代表?第四,DMA对看门人规定了一系列该做和不该做的事情,其中许多都是受到过去或正在进行的反垄断调查的启发。这种经验是否证明了深远的义务是合理的,如果是,它们是否足够灵活,以允许有利于竞争的看门人行为?最后,DMA基于这样一种观点,即大型在线平台并没有持续提供预期的创新成果,而且从它们带来的创新中获得的回报超过了它们应得的份额。苹果应用商店是数字经济中最重要的创新平台,它的历史证明了这一假设。
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