概述南非竞争管理机构在数字化转型背景下根据 1998 年第 89 号《竞争法》监管价格歧视的权力范围

Phemelo Magau
{"title":"概述南非竞争管理机构在数字化转型背景下根据 1998 年第 89 号《竞争法》监管价格歧视的权力范围","authors":"Phemelo Magau","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 as amended (the Competition Act) is, among others, to promote the efficiency, adaptability and development of the economy as well as to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices. In line with this purpose, the Competition Act provides that a dominant firm is prohibited from engaging in price discrimination if such conduct will likely substantially prevent or lessen competition, which would be to the detriment of consumers. Notably the Competition Act has established various bodies to regulate competition and act against any conduct prohibited by this Act in South Africa. These bodies include the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal, and the Competition Appeal Court. Notwithstanding the prohibition of price discrimination, the Competition Act does not expressly provide adequate enforcement tools for competition authorities to combat uncompetitive practices in the digital era. Moreover, the Competition Act does not expressly grant these statutory bodies clear roles and mandates on providing consumers with adequate and suitable redress when they have been victims of algorithmic price discrimination. With recent technological developments, electronic commerce (e-commerce), and digital transformation, consumers have become vulnerable to various challenges such as excessive pricing, data breaches and algorithmic pricing. The online and digital markets are characterised by complex transactions, innovative technologies and business practices which expose all consumers, including vulnerable consumers, to different risks. As such, the role of the competition authorities needs to be recalibrated to enhance consumer protection on the pricing of goods and services. To this end this paper seeks to investigate the role and ambit of the powers of these competition authorities in the regulation of price discrimination in the context of digital transformation and the digital economy. This is done to assess whether the competition authorities have the necessary tools of enforcement to ensure that markets are competitive and to combat uncompetitive conduct in the digital economy and online markets.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation\",\"authors\":\"Phemelo Magau\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 as amended (the Competition Act) is, among others, to promote the efficiency, adaptability and development of the economy as well as to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices. In line with this purpose, the Competition Act provides that a dominant firm is prohibited from engaging in price discrimination if such conduct will likely substantially prevent or lessen competition, which would be to the detriment of consumers. Notably the Competition Act has established various bodies to regulate competition and act against any conduct prohibited by this Act in South Africa. These bodies include the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal, and the Competition Appeal Court. Notwithstanding the prohibition of price discrimination, the Competition Act does not expressly provide adequate enforcement tools for competition authorities to combat uncompetitive practices in the digital era. Moreover, the Competition Act does not expressly grant these statutory bodies clear roles and mandates on providing consumers with adequate and suitable redress when they have been victims of algorithmic price discrimination. With recent technological developments, electronic commerce (e-commerce), and digital transformation, consumers have become vulnerable to various challenges such as excessive pricing, data breaches and algorithmic pricing. The online and digital markets are characterised by complex transactions, innovative technologies and business practices which expose all consumers, including vulnerable consumers, to different risks. As such, the role of the competition authorities needs to be recalibrated to enhance consumer protection on the pricing of goods and services. To this end this paper seeks to investigate the role and ambit of the powers of these competition authorities in the regulation of price discrimination in the context of digital transformation and the digital economy. This is done to assess whether the competition authorities have the necessary tools of enforcement to ensure that markets are competitive and to combat uncompetitive conduct in the digital economy and online markets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"16 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17154\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经修订的 1998 年第 89 号《竞争法》(《竞争法》)旨在促进经济的效率、适应性和发展,并为消费者提供有竞争力的价格和产品选择。根据这一宗旨,《竞争法》规定,如果占支配地位的公司的价格歧视行为可能会严重阻碍或削弱竞争,从而损害消费者利益,则禁止该公司从事此类行为。值得注意的是,《竞争法》设立了各种机构来监管竞争,并对该法在南非禁止的任何行为采取行动。这些机构包括竞争委员会、竞争法庭和竞争上诉法院。尽管禁止价格歧视,但《竞争法》并未明确为竞争管理机构提供足够的执法工具,以打击数字时代的非竞争行为。此外,《竞争法》也没有明确赋予这些法定机构清晰的职责和任务,在消费者成为算法价格歧视的受害者时,为他们提供充分和适当的补偿。随着近年来的技术发展、电子商务(e-commerce)和数字化转型,消费者容易受到各种挑战的影响,如定价过高、数据泄露和算法定价。在线和数字市场的特点是交易复杂、技术创新和商业实践,这使包括弱势消费者在内的所有消费者面临不同的风险。因此,竞争管理机构的作用需要重新调整,以加强对消费者在商品和服务定价方面的保护。为此,本文试图研究在数字化转型和数字经济背景下,竞争管理机构在监管价格歧视方面的作用和权力范围。这样做是为了评估竞争管理机构是否拥有必要的执法工具,以确保市场的竞争性,并打击数字经济和在线市场中的不竞争行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
The purpose of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 as amended (the Competition Act) is, among others, to promote the efficiency, adaptability and development of the economy as well as to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices. In line with this purpose, the Competition Act provides that a dominant firm is prohibited from engaging in price discrimination if such conduct will likely substantially prevent or lessen competition, which would be to the detriment of consumers. Notably the Competition Act has established various bodies to regulate competition and act against any conduct prohibited by this Act in South Africa. These bodies include the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal, and the Competition Appeal Court. Notwithstanding the prohibition of price discrimination, the Competition Act does not expressly provide adequate enforcement tools for competition authorities to combat uncompetitive practices in the digital era. Moreover, the Competition Act does not expressly grant these statutory bodies clear roles and mandates on providing consumers with adequate and suitable redress when they have been victims of algorithmic price discrimination. With recent technological developments, electronic commerce (e-commerce), and digital transformation, consumers have become vulnerable to various challenges such as excessive pricing, data breaches and algorithmic pricing. The online and digital markets are characterised by complex transactions, innovative technologies and business practices which expose all consumers, including vulnerable consumers, to different risks. As such, the role of the competition authorities needs to be recalibrated to enhance consumer protection on the pricing of goods and services. To this end this paper seeks to investigate the role and ambit of the powers of these competition authorities in the regulation of price discrimination in the context of digital transformation and the digital economy. This is done to assess whether the competition authorities have the necessary tools of enforcement to ensure that markets are competitive and to combat uncompetitive conduct in the digital economy and online markets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
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