A Missed Opportunity: The European Union’s New Powers over Digital Platforms

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-09-27 DOI:10.1177/0003603X221126128
John Davies, Valentine Meunier, Gianmarco Calanchi, Angelos Stenimachitis
{"title":"A Missed Opportunity: The European Union’s New Powers over Digital Platforms","authors":"John Davies, Valentine Meunier, Gianmarco Calanchi, Angelos Stenimachitis","doi":"10.1177/0003603X221126128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the European Union assumes that all large “core platform service” providers pose similar threats to competition and to fairness and thus imposes identical obligations on all of them. The alternative “New Competition Tool,” that would have allowed the European Commission (EC) to conduct fact-intensive investigations of markets to design bespoke remedies, has been largely abandoned. The approach adopted contradicts the basic principle that competition policy should be concerned with evidence of adverse effects. The proponents of the adopted form of the DMA argue that ex ante action is required to forestall irreversible harm to competition, but that same logic also implies assessing the risk of harm from excessive regulation—and the DMA contains no mechanism to do so. Given the different underlying economics of different kinds of platform services, including the way some support digital ecosystems involving many firms, a different approach is needed. The EC missed the opportunity to introduce a market investigation tool. The rigid and static framework of the DMA seems like the wrong solution, given the economics of digital markets.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"504 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","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/10.1177/0003603X221126128","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

Abstract

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the European Union assumes that all large “core platform service” providers pose similar threats to competition and to fairness and thus imposes identical obligations on all of them. The alternative “New Competition Tool,” that would have allowed the European Commission (EC) to conduct fact-intensive investigations of markets to design bespoke remedies, has been largely abandoned. The approach adopted contradicts the basic principle that competition policy should be concerned with evidence of adverse effects. The proponents of the adopted form of the DMA argue that ex ante action is required to forestall irreversible harm to competition, but that same logic also implies assessing the risk of harm from excessive regulation—and the DMA contains no mechanism to do so. Given the different underlying economics of different kinds of platform services, including the way some support digital ecosystems involving many firms, a different approach is needed. The EC missed the opportunity to introduce a market investigation tool. The rigid and static framework of the DMA seems like the wrong solution, given the economics of digital markets.
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
错失的机遇:欧盟在数字平台上的新力量
欧盟的《数字市场法》(DMA)认为,所有大型“核心平台服务”提供商都对竞争和公平构成了类似的威胁,因此对所有提供商都施加了相同的义务。另一种“新竞争工具”本可以让欧盟委员会(EC)对市场进行事实深入调查,以设计定制的补救措施,但基本上被放弃了。所采取的做法违背了竞争政策应关注不利影响证据的基本原则。采用DMA形式的支持者认为,需要事先采取行动来防止对竞争造成不可逆转的损害,但同样的逻辑也意味着要评估过度监管带来的损害风险,而DMA没有这样做的机制,包括一些支持涉及许多公司的数字生态系统的方式,需要一种不同的方法。欧盟委员会错过了引入市场调查工具的机会。考虑到数字市场的经济性,DMA的僵化和静态框架似乎是错误的解决方案。
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
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
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