Abstract
This paper analyses two particular merger decisions; the EU Commission’s Facebook/WhatsApp decision and the UK OFT’s (now CMA) Facebook/Instagram decision. In analysing these two cases common flaws are discovered. First, a poor or superficial assessment of the relevant market and second, the assumption that rapid growth of entrants in these new product or geographical markets is an indication of low barriers to entry. These miscalculations lead to a mistaken belief that the markets in which the proposed mergers were to be conducted were competitive. It is argued here that once account is taken of these mistakes it becomes clear that the markets had far fewer competitors than originally thought and that they were not characterised by low barriers to entry on an ongoing basis. Policy recommendations are made to remedy these issues for the benefit of global competition enforcement authorities.
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.
- 2.
Mandrescu (2017), p. 353.
- 3.
See Commission Staff Working Document on Online Platforms SWD (2016) 172, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-staff-working-document-online-platforms [Accessed 08 July 2019]; Commission Decision of 26.4.2018 on setting up the group of experts for the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy, C (2018) 2393 final. Auer and Petit (2015), p. 426.
- 4.
Kupčík and Mikeš (2018), p. 393; Stucke and Grunes (2016); “Big Data: Bringing Competition Policy to the Digital Era” OECD Report ref. no.DAF/COMP(2016)14 published on 27 October2016. Consider also: Viktoria Robertson, H.S.E., Excessive Data Collection: Privacy Considerations and Abuse of Dominance in the Era of Big Data (June 24, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3408971 (Accessed on 08/07/2019); Kathuria, Vikas and Globocnik, Jure, Exclusionary Conduct in Data-Driven Markets: Limitations of Data Sharing Remedy (February 18, 2019). Forthcoming in: Marco Botta (ed.), EU Competition Law Remedies in Data Economy, Springer 2019; Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 19-04. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3337524 (Accessed on 08/07/2019); Although also consider Dirk Auer, Geoffrey Manne, ‘The Antitrust Dystopia: The Case of Big Data Competition’ (presented at ASCOLA conference 2019, forthcoming).
- 5.
Mandrescu (2017) notes the following: rapport of the German national competition authority, http://www.monopolkommission.de/images/PDF/SG/s68_fulltext_eng.pdf; see also the rapport from the DG for internal policy on online platforms, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542235/IPOL_STU(2015)542235_EN.pdf; and the OECD Round table on two sided markets DAF/COMP/WD/(2009)69, https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44445730.pdf [Accessed 08 July 2019].
- 6.
Kommission Wettbewerbsrecht 4.0, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Wirtschaft/kommission-wettbewerbsrecht-4-0.html [Accessed 10 July 2019].
- 7.
- 8.
Jacques Crémer, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye and Heike Schweitzer (European Commission), Competition Policy for the Digital Era (4 April 2019), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2019].
- 9.
Jean Tirole, Competition Policy in the Digital Age (Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation, Brussels, January 2019).
- 10.
Jung and Sinclair (2019), p. 266.
- 11.
Jung and Sinclair (2019), p. 267.
- 12.
Jung and Sinclair (2019), pp. 268–270.
- 13.
Jung and Sinclair (2019), p. 270.
- 14.
Consider Germany’s new § 35 1a in the Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen 1957 and Austria’s new § 9(4) in the Bundesgesetz gegen Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen 2005. Also consider as a solution to this issue Andrew McLean, “Futurity and the Future of Competition: The Case of Killer Acquisitions” (15th ASCOLA conference, online, June 2020).
- 15.
Weitbrecht (2015), p. 153.
- 16.
Weitbrecht (2015), p. 153.
- 17.
Mandrescu (2017), p. 353.
- 18.
Consider for example OFT, ‘Motorola Mobility Holding (Google, Inc.) of Waze Mobile Limited’ (2013) ME/6167/13; OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Amazon.com Inc. of the Book Depository International Limited’ (2011) ME/5085/11; Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.4731 - Google/ DoubleClick’ C(2008) 927 final; OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Expedia of Trivago’ ME/5894/13 (the OFT elected not to assess this merger due to failing the market share test); and most recently Facebook/Giphy although whether this will be challenged in the US jurisdiction is open to question.
- 19.
In the sense that one comes from the UK and the other from the EU, even though UK and EU law shares the same fundamental principles.
- 20.
The European Union Merger Regulation (EUMR) preamble para 4.
- 21.
EUMR preamble para 5.
- 22.
EUMR Article 2.
- 23.
Vertical merger guidelines.
- 24.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5.
- 25.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 11(b).
- 26.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 58–60.
- 27.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, Section IV.
- 28.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 24.
- 29.
Although interesting, discussion of these issues will remain outside the ambit of this work as the harm caused by a lack of competition in ‘free’ product and service markets constitute a formidable topic in itself.
- 30.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 68; similarly in the UK Merger Guidelines it states: ‘Where entry barriers are low, the merged firm is more likely to be constrained by entry; conversely, this is less likely where barriers are high.’ Merger Assessment Guidelines CC2 Revised, OFT 1254, Sept 2010, para 5.8.4.
- 31.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 70.
- 32.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 71.
- 33.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 31.
- 34.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 70.
- 35.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 31.
- 36.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final.
- 37.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 108.
- 38.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 109.
- 39.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 117.
- 40.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 118.
- 41.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 119.
- 42.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 120.
- 43.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 121.
- 44.
- 45.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 135.
- 46.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 133.
- 47.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 134.
- 48.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 132.
- 49.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, footnote 79.
- 50.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, 105.
- 51.
- 52.
https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/192 (Accessed 03/04/2019); https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/topics/6073/6089/437 (Accessed 03/04/2019).
- 53.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 38.
- 54.
Data provided by the Parties for their market share in the EEA market for consumer communications apps on iOS and Android smartphones between November 2013 and May 2014.
- 55.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final 96.
- 56.
https://www.techinasia.com/line-annual-revenue-2015 (Accessed 03/04/2019).
- 57.
- 58.
http://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/ (Accessed 03/04/2019).
- 59.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 104.
- 60.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 104.
- 61.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 105.
- 62.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 105.
- 63.
Commission, ‘Case No COMP/M.7217 - Facebook/ Whatsapp’ C(2014) 7239 final, para 140.
- 64.
Mandrescu (2017), p. 353.
- 65.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/17/technology/telegram-whatsapp-brazil-suspension/ [Accessed 10 July 2019].
- 66.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12.
- 67.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 7.
- 68.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 14.
- 69.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 30.
- 70.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 14.
- 71.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 15.
- 72.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 22.
- 73.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 43–44.
- 74.
Maija Palmer, Are there any viable alternatives to Facebook? The difficulties of leaving a social media platform with two billion users (25 April 2018) Financial Times.
- 75.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 28.
- 76.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 34.
- 77.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18290637/google-plus-shutdown-consumer-personal-account-delete (accessed on 12/06/2019).
- 78.
https://support.google.com/plus/answer/9217723?hl=en-GB (accessed on 12/06/2019).
- 79.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18290637/google-plus-shutdown-consumer-personal-account-delete (accessed on 12/06/2019).
- 80.
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-to-google-plus-2015-4?r=US&IR=T (Accessed 12/06/2019) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/heres-why-google-failed (Accessed 12/06/2019) https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/17/five-reasons-why-google-died/ (Accessed 12/06/2019).
- 81.
OFT, ‘Anticipated acquisition by Facebook Inc. of Instagram Inc’ (2012) ME/5525/12, para 36.
- 82.
Consider early empirical study of such advantages present in 1977; Ronald Bond, David Lean, ‘Sales, promotion and product differentiation in two prescription drug markets’ (1977) Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission, economic report. Consider further study and comment such as: Robinson et al. (1994), p. 1; Aoki (1998), p. 284; Lean (1994), p. 177; Scherer (1994), p. 173; Tufano (1989), p. 213; Gal-Or (1985), p. 649.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
B. Lieberman, ‘Did first-mover advantage survive the dot-com crash? (2005) Working Paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
- 89.
For a study on where easy replication of innovations can actually stymie innovation consider; Rasmusen and Yoon (2012), p. 374.
- 90.
Srinivasan et al. (2004), p. 41.
- 91.
Wang et al. (2010), p. 1.
- 92.
Cross-generational compatibility is where one generation of products is compatible with the next.
- 93.
Intra-generational compatibility is where the products are now compatible within a particular generation. The example given by the authors is ‘DVD players are cross-generation incompatible with previous-generation VCR players but are within-generation compatible with each other’; Wang et al. (2010), p. 2.
- 94.
Varadarajan et al. (2008), p. 293.
- 95.
Varadarajan et al. (2008), p. 293.
- 96.
- 97.
The legally appropriate test in such circumstances, as set out by Case 6/72 Continental Can v Commission EU:C:1973:22, para 32 and Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission EU:C:1978:22, para 22.
- 98.
Although it is fully accepted that this is easier to see with hindsight, nonetheless the aim here is to improve enforcement for the future.
- 99.
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5, para 68.
References
Books
Downes L, Mui C (1998) Unleashing the killer app: digital strategies for market dominance. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge
Kathuria V, Globocnik J (2019) Exclusionary conduct in data-driven markets: limitations of data sharing remedy. In: Botta M (ed) EU competition law remedies in data economy. Springer (forthcoming)
Stucke ME, Grunes PA (2016) Big data and competition policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Journals
Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strateg Manag J 22(6/7):493
Aoki R (1998) Strategic complements with first mover advantage. Metroeconomica 49(3):284
Auer D, Petit N (2015) Two-sided markets and the challenge of turning economic theory into antitrust policy. Antitrust Bull 60(4):426
Dewan R, Jing B, Seidmann A (2003) Product customization and price competition on the internet. Manag Sci 49(8):1055
Gal-Or E (1985) First mover and second mover advantages. Int Econ Rev 26(3):649
Geyskens I, Gielens K, Dekimpe M (2002) The market valuation of internet channel additions. J Mark 66(2):102
Jung N, Sinclair E (2019) Innovation theories of harm in merger control: plugging a perceived enforcement gap in anticipation of more far-reaching reforms? Eur Compet Law Rev 40(6):266
Kupčík J, Mikeš S (2018) Discussion on big data, online advertising and competition policy. Eur Compet Law Rev 39(9):393
Lean D (1994) First-mover advantages from pioneering new markets: comment. Rev Ind Organ 9:177
Lee R, Grewal R (2004) Strategic responses to new technologies and their impact on firm performance. J Mark 68(4):157
Mandrescu D (2017) Applying EU competition law to online platforms: the road ahead - part 1. Eur Compet Law Rev 38(8):353
Nikolaeva R (2007) The dynamic nature of survival determinants in e-commerce. J Acad Mark Sci 35(4):560
Pan Y, Li S, Tse DK (1999) The impact of order and mode of market entry on profitability and market share. J Int Bus Stud 30(1):81
Porter M (2001) Strategy and the internet. Harv Bus Rev 79(63)
Rasmusen E, Yoon Y-R (2012) First versus second mover advantage with information asymmetry about the profitability of new markets. J Ind Econ 60(3):374
Ravenscraft D (1983) Structure-profit relationships at the line of business and industry level. Rev Econ Stat 65:22
Robinson W (1988) Sources of market Pioneer advantages: the case of industrial goods industries. J Mark Res 25:87
Robinson W, Fomell C (1985) Sources of market Pioneer advantages in consumer goods industries. J Mark Res 22:305
Robinson W, Kalyanaram G, Urban G (1994) First-mover advantages from pioneering new markets: a survey of empirical evidence. Rev Ind Organ 9:1
Scherer F (1994) First-mover advantages from pioneering new markets: comment. Rev Ind Organ 9:173
Shepherd W (1972) The elements of market structure. Rev Econ Stat 54:25
Srinivasan R, Lilien GL, Rangaswamy A (2004) First in, first out? The effects of network externalities on Pioneer survival. J Mark 68:41
Suarez F, Lanzolla G (2007) The role of environmental dynamics in building a first mover advantage theory. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):377
Tapscott D (2001) Rethinking strategy in a networked world. Strategy Bus 24:1
Tufano P (1989) Financial innovation and first-mover advantages. J Financ Econ 25:213
Varadarajan R, Yadav MS, Shankar V (2008) First-mover advantage in an internet-enabled market environment: conceptual framework and propositions. J Acad Mark Sci 36:293
Wang Q, Chen Y, Xie J (2010) Survival in markets with network effects: product compatibility and order-of-entry effects. J Mark 74:1
Weitbrecht A (2015) From cement to digital industries - EU merger control 2014. Eur Compet Law Rev 36(4):148
Webpages
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56bc29d3fd0b (Accessed on 21/06/2019)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-whatsapp-facebook-idUSBREA1I26B20140220
https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/192 (Accessed 03/04/2019)
https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/topics/6073/6089/437 (Accessed 03/04/2019)
https://www.techinasia.com/line-annual-revenue-2015 (Accessed 03/04/2019)
https://www.businessinsider.com/wechat-breaks-700-million-monthly-active-users-2016-4?r=US&IR=T (Accessed 03/04/2019)
http://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/ (Accessed 03/04/2019)
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/17/technology/telegram-whatsapp-brazil-suspension/ [Accessed 10 July 2019]
https://support.google.com/plus/answer/9217723?hl=en-GB (accessed on 12/06/2019)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18290637/google-plus-shutdown-consumer-personal-account-delete (accessed on 12/06/2019)
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-to-google-plus-2015-4?r=US&IR=T (Accessed 12/06/2019)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/heres-why-google-failed (Accessed 12/06/2019)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/17/five-reasons-why-google-died/ (Accessed 12/06/2019)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18290637/google-plus-shutdown-consumer-personal-account-delete (accessed on 12/06/2019)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidwismer/2012/10/14/googles-larry-page-competition-is-one-click-away-and-other-quotes-of-the-week/#33caa3125ea1 (Accessed on 12/06/2019)
Working Papers
See Commission Staff Working Document on Online Platforms SWD (2016) 172, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-staff-working-document-online-platforms [Accessed 08 July 2019]
Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 19-04. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3337524 (Accessed on 08/07/2019)
Lieberman M (2005) Did first-mover advantage survive the dot-com crash? Working Paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles
Viktoria Robertson, H.S.E., Excessive Data Collection: Privacy Considerations and Abuse of Dominance in the Era of Big Data (June 24, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3408971 (Accessed on 08/07/2019)
Conference Papers
Auer D, Manne G (2019) The Antitrust Dystopia: The Case of Big Data Competition. Presented at ASCOLA conference, Aix-en-Provence 27–29 June 2019
Tirole J (2019) Competition Policy in the Digital Age. Paper presented at Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation, Brussels, 17 January 2019
McLean A (2020) Futurity and the Future of Competition: The Case of Killer Acquisitions. Paper presented at 15th ASCOLA conference, online, 25–27 June 2020
Reports
Crémer J, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye and Heike Schweitzer (European Commission), Competition Policy for the Digital Era (4 April 2019), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2019]
“Big Data: Bringing Competition Policy to the Digital Era” OECD Report ref. no.DAF/COMP(2016)14 published on 27 October2016
Rapport of the German national competition authority, http://www.monopolkommission.de/images/PDF/SG/s68_fulltext_eng.pdf
See also the rapport from the DG for internal policy on online platforms, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542235/IPOL_STU(2015)542235_EN.pdf
The OECD Round table on two sided markets DAF/COMP/WD/(2009)69, https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44445730.pdf [Accessed 08 July 2019]
Kommission Wettbewerbsrecht 4.0, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Wirtschaft/kommission-wettbewerbsrecht-4-0.html [Accessed 10 July 2019]
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/digital-competition-expert-panel-call-for-evidence/digital-competition-expert-panel [Accessed 10 July 2019]
Newspapers
Maija Palmer, Are there any viable alternatives to Facebook? The difficulties of leaving a social media platform with two billion users (25 April 2018) Financial Times
Commission Decisions Setting Up Expert Groups
Commission Decision of 26.4.2018 on setting up the group of experts for the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy, C (2018) 2393 final
Guidelines
Vertical merger guidelines OJ [2010] C 130/1
Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers OJ [2004] C 31/5
Merger Assessment Guidelines CC2 Revised, OFT 1254, Sept 2010
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cole, M. (2021). Mergers and Competition in Digital Markets: Learning from Our Mistakes. In: Lee, J. (eds) Takeover Law in the UK, the EU and China. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72345-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72345-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72344-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72345-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)