应对个性化定价下的反竞争平行行为

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW World Competition Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.54648/woco2019021
P. Siciliani
{"title":"应对个性化定价下的反竞争平行行为","authors":"P. Siciliani","doi":"10.54648/woco2019021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.","PeriodicalId":43861,"journal":{"name":"World Competition","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tackling Anticompetitive Parallel Conduct under Personalized Pricing\",\"authors\":\"P. Siciliani\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/woco2019021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Competition\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Competition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2019021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2019021","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: 0

摘要

本文考察了个性化定价下的平行行为在何种情况下是反竞争的,以及它是否在竞争法的范围内,这取决于竞争对手针对的是消费者偏好异质性的哪个维度。同时,由于在推断阶段固有的模糊性,针对基于消费者支付意愿的个性化定价的执行,以及对品牌偏好的缺乏,是有问题的;基于异质性搜索成本水平的个性化定价的剥削性使用可能超出了竞争的范围,因为其可持续性不是由串通协议支撑的。相比之下,企业阻碍消费者使用第三方价格聚合器的证据可能提供了一个明确的信号,即它们串通起来混淆价格。
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
Tackling Anticompetitive Parallel Conduct under Personalized Pricing
This article investigates under what circumstances parallel conduct under personalized pricing is anticompetitive and whether it is within the scope of competition law, depending on which dimension of consumer preference heterogeneity is targeted by rival firms. Whilst enforcement against the use of personalized pricing based on consumers willingness to pay, and the lack thereof with respect to brand preferences, is problematic due to the inherent ambiguity at the inferential phase; the exploitative use of personalized pricing based on heterogeneous levels of search costs might be beyond the reach of competition because its sustainability is not underpinned by a collusive agreement. In contrast, evidence that firms are obstructing consumers use of third-party price aggregators may provide an unambiguous signal that they are colluding to obfuscate prices.
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
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
The Decriminalization of Cartel Activity in Kuwait: A Regulatory Framework Collective or Collusive Agreements? World Competition Book Review: Regulation 1/2003 and EU Antitrust Enforcement: A Systematic Guide Kris Dekeyser, Céline Gauer, Johannes Laitenberger, Nils Wahl, Wouter Wils & Luca Prete (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer 2023) Big Data Requests: The Commission’s Powers to Collect Documents in Investigations Under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
×
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