竞争法与数字市场:适应传统类别还是新规则?亚马逊案对非公开数据获取的几点思考

Q2 Social Sciences
Caterina Fratea
{"title":"竞争法与数字市场:适应传统类别还是新规则?亚马逊案对非公开数据获取的几点思考","authors":"Caterina Fratea","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated.\nDigital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competition Law and Digital Markets: Adaptation of Traditional Categories or New Rules? Some Reflections Arising from the Amazon Cases Regarding the Access to Non-Public Data\",\"authors\":\"Caterina Fratea\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eulr2022044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated.\\nDigital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR\",\"PeriodicalId\":53431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022044","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

摘要

本文旨在分析大型数字平台涉嫌的排他性滥用行为,特别是在亚马逊市场案件中涉及的非公开数据的访问,是否可以应用法院围绕拒绝交易和利润挤压做法制定的法律标准进行评估。它还表明,尽管新的《数字市场法案》在监管这些经济运营商的活动方面迈出了一步,但仍有一些问题有待解决,特别是在其非部门方法方面。最后,研究了数据访问和隐私规则之间的相互作用。数字单一市场,数字平台,竞争法,滥用主导地位,自我偏好,获取非公开数据,基本设施原则,利润挤压,数字市场法案,GDPR
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Competition Law and Digital Markets: Adaptation of Traditional Categories or New Rules? Some Reflections Arising from the Amazon Cases Regarding the Access to Non-Public Data
The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated. Digital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
×
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