The Issue of Consumer Welfare in the Government Complaints against Google & Facebook

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1177/0003603X211067115
W. Comanor, Donald I. Baker
{"title":"The Issue of Consumer Welfare in the Government Complaints against Google & Facebook","authors":"W. Comanor, Donald I. Baker","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211067115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the Consumer Welfare doctrine has served as an important feature of antitrust liability since the 1980s, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have downplayed this factor in their respective Google and amended Facebook complaints. Each complaint makes a general reference to this issue, but with few detailed factual allegations. A complicating factor is that the defendants have gained dominant market positions by providing valuable digital services at little or no direct charge to consumers. In this paper, we emphasize that the services offered by the two platforms embody quality as well as price dimensions, both of which can affect consumers positively. Indeed, quality product dimensions may become even more important to consumers in a zero price environment. We construct a simple economic model using privacy as a significant quality attribute through which these issues can be explored, and then draw some appropriate policy conclusions.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"12 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","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/10.1177/0003603X211067115","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

Although the Consumer Welfare doctrine has served as an important feature of antitrust liability since the 1980s, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have downplayed this factor in their respective Google and amended Facebook complaints. Each complaint makes a general reference to this issue, but with few detailed factual allegations. A complicating factor is that the defendants have gained dominant market positions by providing valuable digital services at little or no direct charge to consumers. In this paper, we emphasize that the services offered by the two platforms embody quality as well as price dimensions, both of which can affect consumers positively. Indeed, quality product dimensions may become even more important to consumers in a zero price environment. We construct a simple economic model using privacy as a significant quality attribute through which these issues can be explored, and then draw some appropriate policy conclusions.
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
政府对b谷歌和Facebook投诉中的消费者福利问题
尽管自20世纪80年代以来,消费者福利原则一直是反垄断责任的一个重要特征,但司法部(DOJ)和联邦贸易委员会(FTC)在各自的bbb和修改Facebook投诉中淡化了这一因素。每一项控诉都笼统地提到这个问题,但几乎没有详细的事实指控。一个复杂的因素是,被告通过向消费者提供很少或不直接收费的有价值的数字服务,获得了市场主导地位。在本文中,我们强调两个平台提供的服务包含质量和价格两个维度,这两个维度对消费者都有积极的影响。事实上,在零价格环境下,高质量的产品尺寸对消费者来说可能变得更加重要。我们构建了一个简单的经济模型,将隐私作为一个重要的质量属性,通过这个模型可以探索这些问题,然后得出一些适当的政策结论。
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