Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data

Nathaniel Newman
{"title":"Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data","authors":"Nathaniel Newman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2309547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is a case for reorienting many antitrust investigations -- and more generally regulatory approaches -- to focus on how control of personal data by corporations can entrench monopoly power in an economy shaped increasingly by the power of \"big data.\" The core source of value being delivered to advertisers by a company like Google (as with many \"new media\" companies) is the ability to target users with ads because of its dominant control of databases of user personal data. As section II of this article will argue, what is largely missed in analyses defending Google from antitrust action is how that ever expanding control of user personal data and its critical value to online advertisers creates an insurmountable barrier to entry for new competition. And, contra the idea that Google just inherited that business advantage through its innovation in search engine technology, section III of this article will detail how Google has aggressively expanded its control of user data through expanding into new product sectors to collect additional user data with the intent to use its presence in those other markets to reinforce its core search advertising monopoly. Beyond the general expansion into tied markets for user data, Google’s \"bad acts\" have included multiple violations of the law through invading user privacy in pursuit of control of user data. In section IV, the article proposes remedies that can address Google’s dominance in three major ways, separately and in combination: (1) reduce Google’s control of overall user data, (2) create a real market for user data by empowering users, and (3) impose public interest obligations on Google to restrain damage to consumer welfare. In section V, the article concludes by noting how issues raised by the article present some fundamental challenges to the Chicago School approach, including highlighting how the lock-in of monopoly in online markets calls for earlier intervention in technology markets and a much broader recognition of how expanding information asymmetry due to data mining undermines the hope that the market itself will curb monopoly abuses in the economy.","PeriodicalId":345107,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2309547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

This article is a case for reorienting many antitrust investigations -- and more generally regulatory approaches -- to focus on how control of personal data by corporations can entrench monopoly power in an economy shaped increasingly by the power of "big data." The core source of value being delivered to advertisers by a company like Google (as with many "new media" companies) is the ability to target users with ads because of its dominant control of databases of user personal data. As section II of this article will argue, what is largely missed in analyses defending Google from antitrust action is how that ever expanding control of user personal data and its critical value to online advertisers creates an insurmountable barrier to entry for new competition. And, contra the idea that Google just inherited that business advantage through its innovation in search engine technology, section III of this article will detail how Google has aggressively expanded its control of user data through expanding into new product sectors to collect additional user data with the intent to use its presence in those other markets to reinforce its core search advertising monopoly. Beyond the general expansion into tied markets for user data, Google’s "bad acts" have included multiple violations of the law through invading user privacy in pursuit of control of user data. In section IV, the article proposes remedies that can address Google’s dominance in three major ways, separately and in combination: (1) reduce Google’s control of overall user data, (2) create a real market for user data by empowering users, and (3) impose public interest obligations on Google to restrain damage to consumer welfare. In section V, the article concludes by noting how issues raised by the article present some fundamental challenges to the Chicago School approach, including highlighting how the lock-in of monopoly in online markets calls for earlier intervention in technology markets and a much broader recognition of how expanding information asymmetry due to data mining undermines the hope that the market itself will curb monopoly abuses in the economy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
搜索、反垄断和用户数据控制的经济学
这篇文章是一个重新定位许多反垄断调查——以及更普遍的监管方法——的案例,将重点放在企业对个人数据的控制如何在一个日益受到“大数据”力量影响的经济体中巩固垄断力量。像谷歌这样的公司(与许多“新媒体”公司一样)向广告商提供价值的核心来源是能够通过广告定位用户,因为它对用户个人数据数据库的主导控制。正如本文第二部分将要讨论的,在保护谷歌免受反垄断诉讼的分析中,很大程度上忽略了对用户个人数据的不断扩大的控制及其对在线广告商的关键价值如何为新的竞争创造了一个不可逾越的进入障碍。而且,与谷歌只是通过其在搜索引擎技术上的创新继承了这一商业优势的观点相反,本文的第三部分将详细介绍谷歌如何通过扩展到新的产品领域来收集更多的用户数据,从而积极扩大对用户数据的控制,目的是利用其在其他市场的存在来加强其核心的搜索广告垄断。除了将用户数据扩展到捆绑市场之外,谷歌的“不良行为”还包括侵犯用户隐私以追求对用户数据的控制等多项违法行为。在第四节中,本文提出了可以通过三种主要方式(分别或结合)解决谷歌主导地位的补救措施:(1)减少谷歌对整体用户数据的控制;(2)通过赋予用户权力为用户数据创造一个真正的市场;(3)对谷歌施加公共利益义务,以限制对消费者福利的损害。在第五部分,文章最后指出了文章提出的问题如何对芝加哥学派的方法提出了一些根本性的挑战,包括强调在线市场垄断的锁定如何要求对技术市场进行更早的干预,以及更广泛地认识到由于数据挖掘而扩大的信息不对称如何破坏了市场本身将遏制经济中滥用垄断的希望。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can Collusion Promote Sustainable Consumption and Production? Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US Worlds Colliding: Competition Policy and Bankruptcy Asset Sales The Passing-On of Price Overcharges in European Competition Damages Actions: A Matter of Causation and an Issue of Policy How to Fix Unreasonable Merger Regulation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1