应对个性化定价下的反竞争平行行为

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
P. Siciliani
{"title":"应对个性化定价下的反竞争平行行为","authors":"P. Siciliani","doi":"10.54648/woco2019021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.","PeriodicalId":43861,"journal":{"name":"World Competition","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tackling Anticompetitive Parallel Conduct under Personalized Pricing\",\"authors\":\"P. Siciliani\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/woco2019021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Competition\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Competition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2019021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2019021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了个性化定价下的平行行为在何种情况下是反竞争的,以及它是否在竞争法的范围内,这取决于竞争对手针对的是消费者偏好异质性的哪个维度。同时,由于在推断阶段固有的模糊性,针对基于消费者支付意愿的个性化定价的执行,以及对品牌偏好的缺乏,是有问题的;基于异质性搜索成本水平的个性化定价的剥削性使用可能超出了竞争的范围,因为其可持续性不是由串通协议支撑的。相比之下,企业阻碍消费者使用第三方价格聚合器的证据可能提供了一个明确的信号,即它们串通起来混淆价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tackling Anticompetitive Parallel Conduct under Personalized Pricing
This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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