Abstract
This chapter considers how algorithms affect competition and what their implications are for competition policy. With the economy going digital, a huge number of great innovations have materialized. Consumers have greatly benefitted from these innovations. However, several antitrust issues have emerged. This chapter looks at both the consumer benefits as well as the antitrust issues. It examines contemporary reports to determine whether algorithmic innovations have produced competition law concerns such as tacit collusion or price personalization. Other more sophisticated issues include the increase in nudging strategies from digital platforms.
This chapter develops the arguments set out in an article ‘Algorithms & Competition Law’ published in Competition Policy International (2020). I am grateful to Enrique Bravo, who has provided great research assistance on this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Ezrachi and Stucke (2016b, p. 16).
- 2.
O’Reilly (2010).
- 3.
Stucke and Grunes (2016, p. 1).
- 4.
De Filippi (2014).
- 5.
Hof (2014).
- 6.
De Filippi (2014).
- 7.
Monopolkommission (2015, p. 30).
- 8.
CMA (2015, p. 50).
- 9.
Blattberg and Deighton (1991, pp. 8–11).
- 10.
Monopolkommission (2015, p. 31).
- 11.
CMA (2015, p. 93).
- 12.
OECD (2017).
- 13.
Prüfer and Schottmüller (2017).
- 14.
Consumer Watchdog (2010).
- 15.
European Commission (2017).
- 16.
NTTDATA (2015).
- 17.
Palmer (2017).
- 18.
FTC (2013).
- 19.
CMA (2015, p. 75).
- 20.
Soper (2016).
- 21.
Reuters (2011).
- 22.
Id.
- 23.
Gormsen (2020).
- 24.
Thaler and Sunstein (2012).
- 25.
Id.
- 26.
Id.
- 27.
McKinley (2019).
- 28.
Thaler (2018).
- 29.
BIT Report (2019).
- 30.
Id, 13–14.
- 31.
Id 13.
- 32.
CMA (2019).
- 33.
BIT report (2019, p. 13).
- 34.
Id; Levin (2017).
- 35.
BIT report (2019, pp. 22–23).
- 36.
Case AT.40099, Google Android (Google Android).
- 37.
Koponen (2019).
- 38.
Ha (2019).
- 39.
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Report (2020, p. 26).
- 40.
Id. 14.
- 41.
Walker (2016).
- 42.
European Commission (2018).
- 43.
Dunn (2016).
- 44.
Bindi (2017).
- 45.
Khan (2016, p. 766).
- 46.
Id.
- 47.
Authors United (2015).
- 48.
United States v Topkins, CR 15-00201 WHO Plea Agreement 4 (ND Cal 2015).
- 49.
Ezrachi and Stucke (2016a, pp. 118–119).
- 50.
CMA Report (2015, 3.48).
- 51.
Brooke Group, v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US 209, 227 (1993).
- 52.
OECD Report (2017).
- 53.
OECD Report (2017, p. 22).
- 54.
Id. 21.
- 55.
Autorité de la Concurrence and Bundeskartellamt (2016, pp. 14–15).
- 56.
Ezrachi and Stucke (2016a, p. 61).
- 57.
Id, (2016, p. 62).
- 58.
Newman (2014).
- 59.
Ezrachi and Stucke (2016b).
- 60.
Furman Report (2019).
- 61.
Id, para.3.164.
- 62.
Id, paras.3.163, 3.166.
- 63.
Id, para.3.171.
- 64.
CMA (2018).
- 65.
Id. para5.2.
- 66.
Id.
- 67.
Id.
- 68.
Case 50223 (12 August 2016) Online sales of posters and frames. CMA.
- 69.
CMA, (2018, para.5.35).
- 70.
Id, para.5.37.
- 71.
Id.
- 72.
Id, pp. 4–5.
- 73.
Ipsos et al. (2018).
- 74.
Id, p. 190.
- 75.
Id.
- 76.
Id, p. 167.
- 77.
Id, p. 168.
- 78.
Autorité de la Concurrence and Bundeskartellamt (2019).
- 79.
Id, p. 77.
- 80.
Furman Report (2019, para.3.171).
- 81.
CMA (2018, para.5.37).
- 82.
Schrepel (2020).
- 83.
Case AT.39740—Google Shopping.
- 84.
Id.
- 85.
Id. para.352.
- 86.
Id. paras.597–599.
- 87.
Case 322/81 (1983) NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities. ECLI:EU:C: 1983:313. Para.57.
- 88.
Van den Bergh (2017, p. 109).
- 89.
Alhborn and Evans (2009).
- 90.
Google Android.
- 91.
Case AT.40411—Google Search (Ad Sense).
References
Alhborn C, Evans DS (2009) The microsoft judgment and its implications for competition policy towards dominant firms in Europe. Antitrust Law J 75(3):887–932
Authors United (2015) Letter to the Assistant Attorney General Baer, Authorsunited.net, August 14, 2015. Available at http://www.authorsunited.net/july/
Autorité de la Concurrence, Bundeskartellamt (2016) Competition Law and Data, May 10, 2016. Available at https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Berichte/Big%20Data%20Papier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
Bindi T (2017) WhatsApp, Facebook to face EU data protection taskforce. Zdnet, October 27, 2017. Available at https://www.zdnet.com/article/whatsapp-facebook-to-face-eu-dataprotection-taskforce/
BIT Report (2019) The behavioural science of online harm and manipulation, and what to do about it. An explanatory paper to spark ideas and debate by Elisabeth Costa and David Halpern. The Behavioural Insight Team. Available at https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BIT_The-behavioural-science-of-online-harm-and-manipulation-and-what-to-do-aboutit_Single.pdf
Blattberg RC, Deighton J (1991) Interactive marketing: exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Manage Rev 33(1):5–15
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2020) Review of online targeting: Final Report and recommendations, Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, February 2020. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/864167/CDEJ7836-Review-of-Online-Targeting-05022020.pdf
CMA (2015) The commercial use of consumer data. Report on the CMA’s call for information. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/435817/The_commercial_use_of_consumer_data.pdf
CMA (2018) Pricing algorithms. Economic working paper on the use of algorithms to facilitate collusion and personalised pricing, October 8, 2018. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746353/Algorithms_econ_report.pdf
CMA (2019) Hotel booking sites to make major changes after CMA probe. Press Release, February 9, 2019. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hotel-booking-sites-to-makemajor-changes-after-cma-probe
Consumer Watchdog (2010) Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing Out Competitors and Muscling into New Markets, A Study by Inside Google, June 2, 2010. Available at https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/TrafficStudy-Google.pdf
De Filippi P (2014) Big data, big responsibilities. Internet Policy Rev 3(1). Available at https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/big-data-big-responsibilities
Dunn J (2016) There’s no hope of anyone catching up to Android and iOS. Business Insider, August 23, 2016. Available at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/smartphone-market-shareandroid-ios-windows-blackberry-2016-8#:~:text=As%20noted%20by%20a%20new,%25%20and%200.1%25%2C%20respectively
European Commission (2017) Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Press Release, June 27, 2017. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_17_1785
European Commission (2018) Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google’s search engine. Press Release, July 18, 2018. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581
Ezrachi A, Stucke M (2016a) Virtual competition: the promise and perils of the algorithm-driven economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ezrachi A, Stucke M (2016b) Online platforms and the EU digital single market, Written evidence (OPL0043), in submission of the House of Lords, 10 Report of Session 2015-16, Online Platforms and the Digital Single Markets, April 20, 2016. Available at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-internal-marketsubcommittee/online-platforms-and-the-eu-digital-single-market/written/23223.html
FTC (2013) Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Google’s Search Practices, In the Matter of Google Inc. FTC File Number 111-0163, January 3, 2013. Available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/295971/130103googlesearchstmtofcomm.pdf
Furman Report (2019) Unlocking Digital Competition, Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel, March 2019. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785547/unlocking_digital_competition_furman_review_web.pdf
Gormsen LL (2020) The Importance of Antitrust in the Digital Economy. Digital Freedom Fund, March, 2, 2020. Available at https://digitalfreedomfund.org/the-importance-of-antitrust-inthe-digital-economy/
Ha A (2019) Netflix is experimenting with different episode orders for ‘Love, Death & Robots’. Techcrunch, March 19, 2019
Hof RD (2014) Is artificial intelligence finally coming into its own? MIT Technol Rev March 29, 2016
Ipsos, London Economics, Deloitte (2018) Consumer market study on online market segmentation through personalised pricing/offers in the European Union. Request for Specific Services 2016 85 02 for the implementation of Framework Contract EAHC/2013/CP/04, Final Report. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aid_development_cooperation_fundamental_rights/aid_and_development_by_topic/documents/synthesis_report_online_personalisation_study_final_0.pdf
Khan L (2016) Amazon’s antitrust paradox. Yale Law J 126:746–747
Koponen J (2019) Get ready for a new era of personalized entertainment. Techcrunch, April 14, 2019
Levin S (2017) Facebook told advertisers it can identify teens feeling ‘insecure’ and ‘worthless’. The Guardian, May 1, 2017
McKinley J (2019) What does ‘Amazon’s Choice’ Actually Mean? Reader’s Digest, August 21, 2019. Available at https://www.rd.com/article/what-does-amazons-choice-mean/
Monopolkommission (2015) Competition Policy: The Challenge of Digital Markets. Special Report No 68. Available at https://www.monopolkommission.de/images/PDF/SG/s68_fulltext_eng.pdf
Newman N (2014) The costs of lost privacy: consumer harm and rising economic inequality in the age of Google. William Mitchell Law Rev 40(2):849–889
NTTDATA (2015) Automative 4.0, Sensing the road ahead for tier 1 suppliers. NTT DATA Deutschland, München. Available at https://de.nttdata.com/-/media/NTTDataGermany/Files/2019-EN-WP-Automotive-40.pdf
O’Reilly T (2010) ‘Whole Web’ is the OS of the future. CNET, March 18, 2010. Available at https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-oreilly-whole-web-is-the-os-of-the-future/
OECD (2017) Algorithms and Collusion – Competition policy in the digital age. Available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Algorithms-and-colllusion-competition-policy-in-thedigital-age.pdf
Palmer A (2017) Looks Like Apple Just Killed the iCar. The Street, August 23, 2017
Prüfer J, Schottmüller C (2017) Competing with Big Data. Tilburg Law School, Research Paper, No 06/2017
Reuters (2011) Amazon finds startup investments in the ‘cloud’. Reuters, November 9, 2011
Schrepel T (2020) The fundamental unimportance of algorithmic collusion for antitrust law. Harv J Law Technol, February 7, 2020. Available at http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/thefundamental-unimportance-of-algorithmic-collusion-for-antitrust-law
Soper S (2016) Got a hot seller on Amazon? Prepare for e-tailer to make one too. The Star, April 30, 2016
Stucke M, Grunes A (2016) Big data and competition policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Thaler R (2018) Nudge, not sludge. Science 361(6401):431
Thaler R, Sunstein C (2012) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, happiness. Penguin Books, New York
Van den Bergh R (2017) Comparative competition law and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Walker K (2016) Android’s Model of Open Innovation. Google Europe Blog, April 20, 2016. https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/androids-model-of-open-innovation/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gormsen, L.L. (2022). Algorithmic Antitrust and Consumer Choice. In: Portuese, A. (eds) Algorithmic Antitrust. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85859-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85859-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85858-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85859-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)