{"title":"通过《数字市场法》第 6(2)条加强数据保护和竞争数字市场法》第 6(2)条","authors":"Peter J. van de Waerdt","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2025.106265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) the European Union has taken significant steps in the regulation of large digital market ecosystems. Data protection and competition law are becoming increasingly intertwined, and the DMA’s goals are tightly aligned with them. However, the provision explicitly intended to address the use (and cross-use) of data within gatekeepers’ ecosystems leaves much to be desired. Art. 5(2) DMA offers no substantive new obligations over the established GDPR system, especially in light of the ECJ’s judgement in <em>Meta v. Bundeskartellamt</em>. Furthermore, the consent exception on which it relies leaves a distinct risk of anti-competitive effects and decreasing privacy as a result of information asymmetries and the powerful market position of gatekeepers. However, art. 6(2) DMA also restricts gatekeepers’ ability to use data, if it was received through gatekeepers’ business users. The protective value of the DMA can be significantly increased if the European Commission adopts broad interpretations of when data is used “in competition with business users”, when it is “collected through commercial activities of business users or their customers” and when it is obtained “on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper”. Doing so would conform to the interconnected nature of ecosystems’ data collection practices and their competitive position, and it would bolster the Commission’s ability to act against both the anti-competitive effects and potential privacy infringements of data pooling, above and beyond what art. 5(2) DMA offers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 106265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act\",\"authors\":\"Peter J. van de Waerdt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.irle.2025.106265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) the European Union has taken significant steps in the regulation of large digital market ecosystems. Data protection and competition law are becoming increasingly intertwined, and the DMA’s goals are tightly aligned with them. However, the provision explicitly intended to address the use (and cross-use) of data within gatekeepers’ ecosystems leaves much to be desired. Art. 5(2) DMA offers no substantive new obligations over the established GDPR system, especially in light of the ECJ’s judgement in <em>Meta v. Bundeskartellamt</em>. Furthermore, the consent exception on which it relies leaves a distinct risk of anti-competitive effects and decreasing privacy as a result of information asymmetries and the powerful market position of gatekeepers. However, art. 6(2) DMA also restricts gatekeepers’ ability to use data, if it was received through gatekeepers’ business users. The protective value of the DMA can be significantly increased if the European Commission adopts broad interpretations of when data is used “in competition with business users”, when it is “collected through commercial activities of business users or their customers” and when it is obtained “on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper”. Doing so would conform to the interconnected nature of ecosystems’ data collection practices and their competitive position, and it would bolster the Commission’s ability to act against both the anti-competitive effects and potential privacy infringements of data pooling, above and beyond what art. 5(2) DMA offers.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\"82 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818825000213\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818825000213","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act
With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) the European Union has taken significant steps in the regulation of large digital market ecosystems. Data protection and competition law are becoming increasingly intertwined, and the DMA’s goals are tightly aligned with them. However, the provision explicitly intended to address the use (and cross-use) of data within gatekeepers’ ecosystems leaves much to be desired. Art. 5(2) DMA offers no substantive new obligations over the established GDPR system, especially in light of the ECJ’s judgement in Meta v. Bundeskartellamt. Furthermore, the consent exception on which it relies leaves a distinct risk of anti-competitive effects and decreasing privacy as a result of information asymmetries and the powerful market position of gatekeepers. However, art. 6(2) DMA also restricts gatekeepers’ ability to use data, if it was received through gatekeepers’ business users. The protective value of the DMA can be significantly increased if the European Commission adopts broad interpretations of when data is used “in competition with business users”, when it is “collected through commercial activities of business users or their customers” and when it is obtained “on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper”. Doing so would conform to the interconnected nature of ecosystems’ data collection practices and their competitive position, and it would bolster the Commission’s ability to act against both the anti-competitive effects and potential privacy infringements of data pooling, above and beyond what art. 5(2) DMA offers.
期刊介绍:
The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.