驯服数字垄断:欧盟和美国反垄断和监管演变的比较

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-01-19 DOI:10.1177/0003603X211066978
G. Monti
{"title":"驯服数字垄断:欧盟和美国反垄断和监管演变的比较","authors":"G. Monti","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211066978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers a comparative account of how the European Union and the United States surveil dominant internet players in light of recent enforcement efforts by U.S. antitrust agencies and ongoing discussions about regulating digital giants in both jurisdictions. After setting out themes for comparative analysis, the paper turns to the two actions initiated in the United States against Google: the one filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is similar in focus to the European Commission’s Android decision and the one led by the State of Texas focuses on advertising markets in a manner similar to the European Commission’s AdSense decision. We observe that while there are similar intuitions about anticompetitive conduct in the manner both jurisdictions address the issues, the framing of the competition problem by the U.S. agencies is more sophisticated in relation to the understanding of the markets, the theories of harm, and the design of forward-looking remedies. The paper then compares the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Markets Act with several Bills proposing platform regulation presently discussed in the United States, examining what the two systems have in common, what they may learn from each other, and what regulatory gaps remain.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"40 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taming Digital Monopolies: A Comparative Account of the Evolution of Antitrust and Regulation in the European Union and the United States\",\"authors\":\"G. Monti\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X211066978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper offers a comparative account of how the European Union and the United States surveil dominant internet players in light of recent enforcement efforts by U.S. antitrust agencies and ongoing discussions about regulating digital giants in both jurisdictions. After setting out themes for comparative analysis, the paper turns to the two actions initiated in the United States against Google: the one filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is similar in focus to the European Commission’s Android decision and the one led by the State of Texas focuses on advertising markets in a manner similar to the European Commission’s AdSense decision. We observe that while there are similar intuitions about anticompetitive conduct in the manner both jurisdictions address the issues, the framing of the competition problem by the U.S. agencies is more sophisticated in relation to the understanding of the markets, the theories of harm, and the design of forward-looking remedies. The paper then compares the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Markets Act with several Bills proposing platform regulation presently discussed in the United States, examining what the two systems have in common, what they may learn from each other, and what regulatory gaps remain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"40 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211066978\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211066978","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: 2

摘要

鉴于美国反垄断机构最近的执法工作以及两个司法管辖区正在进行的关于监管数字巨头的讨论,本文对欧盟和美国如何监管占主导地位的互联网参与者进行了比较说明。在列出了比较分析的主题后,本文转向了美国针对谷歌发起的两项行动:司法部提起的诉讼与欧盟委员会的安卓决定的重点相似,得克萨斯州领导的诉讼以类似于欧盟委员会AdSense决定的方式关注广告市场。我们观察到,尽管在两个司法管辖区处理反竞争行为的方式上,对反竞争行为有着相似的直觉,但美国机构对竞争问题的界定在对市场的理解、损害理论和前瞻性补救措施的设计方面更为复杂。然后,该文件将委员会关于《数字市场法》的提案与美国目前讨论的几项提议平台监管的法案进行了比较,研究了这两个系统的共同点,它们可以相互学习,以及还有哪些监管差距。
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
Taming Digital Monopolies: A Comparative Account of the Evolution of Antitrust and Regulation in the European Union and the United States
This paper offers a comparative account of how the European Union and the United States surveil dominant internet players in light of recent enforcement efforts by U.S. antitrust agencies and ongoing discussions about regulating digital giants in both jurisdictions. After setting out themes for comparative analysis, the paper turns to the two actions initiated in the United States against Google: the one filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is similar in focus to the European Commission’s Android decision and the one led by the State of Texas focuses on advertising markets in a manner similar to the European Commission’s AdSense decision. We observe that while there are similar intuitions about anticompetitive conduct in the manner both jurisdictions address the issues, the framing of the competition problem by the U.S. agencies is more sophisticated in relation to the understanding of the markets, the theories of harm, and the design of forward-looking remedies. The paper then compares the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Markets Act with several Bills proposing platform regulation presently discussed in the United States, examining what the two systems have in common, what they may learn from each other, and what regulatory gaps remain.
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
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