科技平台反垄断案件中市场与垄断力的确立

Q2 Social Sciences
Marshall I. Steinbaum
{"title":"科技平台反垄断案件中市场与垄断力的确立","authors":"Marshall I. Steinbaum","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211066984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In June 2021, a federal judge dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s first monopolization complaint against Facebook on the grounds that it did not plead sufficient facts to establish that Facebook possesses monopoly power in online social networking. The ruling highlights two contentious aspects of antitrust jurisprudence: the legal necessity of establishing a defendant’s monopoly power as part of Sherman Act liability for unilateral conduct, and of establishing market power as part of liability for some forms of multi-lateral conduct, as well as the few mechanisms available to plaintiffs in both public and private enforcement to accomplish that, especially following Ohio v. American Express. This article makes two related claims: that direct evidence of market power is plentiful and should be understood as such by courts, and that exactly the direct evidence of market power that courts should consider also establishes that relevant markets on each side of tech platforms are small when properly defined, whatever defendants may say.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"130 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing Market and Monopoly Power in Tech Platform Antitrust Cases\",\"authors\":\"Marshall I. Steinbaum\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X211066984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In June 2021, a federal judge dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s first monopolization complaint against Facebook on the grounds that it did not plead sufficient facts to establish that Facebook possesses monopoly power in online social networking. The ruling highlights two contentious aspects of antitrust jurisprudence: the legal necessity of establishing a defendant’s monopoly power as part of Sherman Act liability for unilateral conduct, and of establishing market power as part of liability for some forms of multi-lateral conduct, as well as the few mechanisms available to plaintiffs in both public and private enforcement to accomplish that, especially following Ohio v. American Express. This article makes two related claims: that direct evidence of market power is plentiful and should be understood as such by courts, and that exactly the direct evidence of market power that courts should consider also establishes that relevant markets on each side of tech platforms are small when properly defined, whatever defendants may say.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"130 - 145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-26\",\"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/10.1177/0003603X211066984\",\"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":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211066984","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

2021年6月,一名联邦法官驳回了联邦贸易委员会对脸书的首次垄断指控,理由是该委员会没有提供足够的事实来证明脸书在在线社交网络中拥有垄断权。该裁决强调了反垄断法中两个有争议的方面:将被告的垄断权确立为《谢尔曼法案》对单方面行为的责任的一部分的法律必要性,以及将市场权力确立为某些形式的多边行为的责任一部分的法律必要性,以及原告在公共和私人执法中为数不多的实现这一目标的机制,特别是在俄亥俄州诉美国运通案之后。这篇文章提出了两个相关的主张:市场力量的直接证据是丰富的,法院应该理解这一点,而法院应该考虑的市场力量的确切直接证据也证明,无论被告怎么说,只要定义得当,科技平台每一方的相关市场都很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Establishing Market and Monopoly Power in Tech Platform Antitrust Cases
In June 2021, a federal judge dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s first monopolization complaint against Facebook on the grounds that it did not plead sufficient facts to establish that Facebook possesses monopoly power in online social networking. The ruling highlights two contentious aspects of antitrust jurisprudence: the legal necessity of establishing a defendant’s monopoly power as part of Sherman Act liability for unilateral conduct, and of establishing market power as part of liability for some forms of multi-lateral conduct, as well as the few mechanisms available to plaintiffs in both public and private enforcement to accomplish that, especially following Ohio v. American Express. This article makes two related claims: that direct evidence of market power is plentiful and should be understood as such by courts, and that exactly the direct evidence of market power that courts should consider also establishes that relevant markets on each side of tech platforms are small when properly defined, whatever defendants may say.
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
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