Facebook’s exploitative and exclusionary abuses in the two-sided market for social networks and display advertising

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2021-08-06 DOI:10.1093/jaenfo/jnab004
Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, J. T. Llanos
{"title":"Facebook’s exploitative and exclusionary abuses in the two-sided market for social networks and display advertising","authors":"Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, J. T. Llanos","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnab004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The German Facebook case has directly addressed the contentious interplay between data protection and competition law for the first time. The Bundeskartellamt’s theory of harm, which directly linked privacy violations to the strengthening of Facebook’s market power, proved controversial: it elicited strong criticism from the appeals court, but then was partially endorsed by the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court). This article shows that an enforcement action against Facebook under Article 102 TFEU need not be controversial. We present empirical evidence confirming that Facebook’s ‘envelopment by privacy policy tying’ strategy exploits consumers, as it causes clear consumer harm on the market for social networks in the form of lack of choice and degradation of quality. In turn, such consumer harm on the ‘free’ side leads to a weakening of the competitive market structure and foreclosure of competitors on the ‘paid’ market for display advertising and other adjacent markets. This strategy falls neatly within the scope of Article 102 TFEU, irrespective of whether it also violates EU data protection law. In addition, the enveloping by privacy policy tying forms part of an overall anti-competitive strategy over which the Commission can assert jurisdiction and prosecute as a single and continuous infringement.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnab004","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: 1

Abstract

The German Facebook case has directly addressed the contentious interplay between data protection and competition law for the first time. The Bundeskartellamt’s theory of harm, which directly linked privacy violations to the strengthening of Facebook’s market power, proved controversial: it elicited strong criticism from the appeals court, but then was partially endorsed by the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court). This article shows that an enforcement action against Facebook under Article 102 TFEU need not be controversial. We present empirical evidence confirming that Facebook’s ‘envelopment by privacy policy tying’ strategy exploits consumers, as it causes clear consumer harm on the market for social networks in the form of lack of choice and degradation of quality. In turn, such consumer harm on the ‘free’ side leads to a weakening of the competitive market structure and foreclosure of competitors on the ‘paid’ market for display advertising and other adjacent markets. This strategy falls neatly within the scope of Article 102 TFEU, irrespective of whether it also violates EU data protection law. In addition, the enveloping by privacy policy tying forms part of an overall anti-competitive strategy over which the Commission can assert jurisdiction and prosecute as a single and continuous infringement.
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
脸书在社交网络和展示广告的双边市场上的剥削性和排他性滥用
德国脸书案首次直接解决了数据保护和竞争法之间存在争议的相互作用。Bundeskartellamt的伤害理论将侵犯隐私与加强Facebook的市场力量直接联系在一起,这一理论被证明是有争议的:它引起了上诉法院的强烈批评,但随后得到了德国联邦最高法院的部分支持。这篇文章表明,根据TFEU第102条对Facebook采取的执法行动不必引起争议。我们提供的经验证据证实,脸书的“隐私政策捆绑包围”策略剥削了消费者,因为它在社交网络市场上以缺乏选择和质量下降的形式对消费者造成了明显的伤害。反过来,这种“免费”方面的消费者伤害会导致竞争性市场结构的削弱,并使“付费”市场和其他邻近市场的竞争对手丧失抵押品赎回权。这一策略完全属于TFEU第102条的范围,无论它是否也违反了欧盟数据保护法。此外,隐私政策捆绑构成了整体反竞争战略的一部分,委员会可以对其行使管辖权,并将其作为单一和持续的侵权行为进行起诉。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal covers a wide range of enforcement related topics, including: public and private competition law enforcement, cooperation between competition agencies, the promotion of worldwide competition law enforcement, optimal design of enforcement policies, performance measurement, empirical analysis of enforcement policies, combination of functions in the competition agency mandate, and competition agency governance. Other topics include the role of the judiciary in competition enforcement, leniency, cartel prosecution, effective merger enforcement, competition enforcement and human rights, and the regulation of sectors.
期刊最新文献
Competition policy and the consumer welfare standard The evolution of EU competition law and policy in the pharmaceutical sector: long-lasting impacts of a pandemic From silence to vigilance: overcoming barriers in public reporting of bid-rigging and cartel violations Agency Insights: The first steps of the DMA adventure Why do people think price fixing is unfair? An empirical legal study on public attitudes in the USA
×
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