Competition Law and Digital Markets: Adaptation of Traditional Categories or New Rules? Some Reflections Arising from the Amazon Cases Regarding the Access to Non-Public Data
{"title":"Competition Law and Digital Markets: Adaptation of Traditional Categories or New Rules? Some Reflections Arising from the Amazon Cases Regarding the Access to Non-Public Data","authors":"Caterina Fratea","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated.\nDigital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022044","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 present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated.
Digital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR
期刊介绍：
The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
