Designing Pro-Competitive Research Data Pools: Which EU Competition Remedies for Research Data Silos in Digital Markets?

• Authors: Giulia Schneider

Abstracts

FR

L’étude part de l’hypothèse que le partage des données peut – dans des circonstances spécifiques – donner lieu à des agrégations anticoncurrentielles de données précieuses pour la recherche sous la forme de silos de données fermés. Elle aborde la question de savoir si et comment les remèdes en matière de concurrence disponibles en vertu du droit communautaire peuvent être utilisés pour la conception de pools de données proconcurrentiels sur les marchés numériques. Des suggestions intéressantes à cet égard sont données par les récentes politiques de mise en oeuvre adoptées par la Commission européenne sur les marchés de l’innovation de haute technologie. Bien qu’elles visent à rétablir des comportements anticoncurrentiels très différents, ces mesures correctives semblent néanmoins partager la function commune d’ouvrir les alliances d’innovation établies pour le transfert d’actifs d’information précieux pour la recherche à des parties concurrentes externes. Dans ce contexte, la pertinence de ces mesures correctives fondées sur l’information dans le contexte des marchés numériques est remise en question. L’étude met finalement en avant l’opportunité d’une collaboration étroite entre les autorités de la concurrence et de la protection des données pour une gouvernance commune des mesures correctives en matière de partage des données.

EN

The study moves from the assumption that the sharing of data can – under specific circumstances – give rise to anticompetitive aggregations of research-valuable data in the form of closed data silos. It addresses the question whether and how competition remedies available under EU law can be used for the design of pro-competitive data pools in digital markets. Interesting suggestions for these purposes are given by the recent enforcement policies enacted by the European Commission in high technology innovation markets. Although aimed at restoring very different anticompetitive conducts, these remedies nonetheless appear to share the common function of opening up established innovation alliances for the transfer of research-valuable information assets to external competing parties. Against this backdrop, the suitability of such information-based remedies in the context of digital markets is questioned. The study ultimately puts forward the opportunity of a close collaboration between competition and data protection authorities for a joint governance of data sharing remedies.

Keywords

EN

abuse; collaborative governance; data sharing; data silos; merger

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 21
• Pages: 161-186

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Giulia Schneider

• Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

• https://orcid.org/000000026244717X

References

• Abrahamson, Z. (2014). Essential Data, The Yale Law Journal, 124, 3, 867–881.
• Aghion, P. et al. (2005). Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 2, 701–728.
• Autorité de la concurrence and Bundeskartellamt (2016). Competition Law and Data. Retrived from: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Berichte/ cid378?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (30.06.2020).
• Bamberger, K.A., Lobel, O. (2017). Platform Market Power, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 32, 1052–1092.
• Bundeskartellamt (2019). Bundeskartellamt Prohibits Facebook From Combining User Data From Different Sources. Retrived from: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2019/07_02_2019_Facebook.html (30.06.2020).
• Casey, A., Farhangi, A., Vogl, R. (2019). Rethinking Explainable Machines: The gdpr’s “Right to Explanation” Debate and the Rise of Algorithmic Audits in Enterprise, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 145–188.
• Colangelo, G., Borgogno, O. (2019). Data Sharing and Interoperability: Fostering Innovation and Competition Through APIs, Computer Law & Security Review, 35, 5, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.03.008
• Crémer, J., De Montjoye, Y.-A., Schweitzer, H. (2019). Competition Policy For the Digital Era – Final report, Report by the special advisers of Commissioner Vestager. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/ kd0419345enn.pdf (30.06.2020).
• David, P. (2000). The Digital Technology Boomerang: New Intellectual Property Rights Threaten Global Open Science, Stanford Department of Economics Working Paper N. 00-006. Retrieved from: https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpdc/0502012.html (30.06.2020).
• D’Cuhna, C. (2019). In Memory of Giovanni Buttarelli, International Data Privacy Law, 9, 3, 129–131.
• De Coninck, R. (2016). Innovation in EU Merger Control: In Need of a Consistent Framework, Competition Law & Policy Debate, 2, 3, 41–51.
• Drexl, J. (2017). Designing Competitive Markets For Industrial Data: Between Propertization and Access, Journal of Intellectual Property and Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 257–292.
• Drexl, J. (2018). Data Access and Data Control in the Era of Connected Devices, Study on Behalf of the European Consumer Organisation BEUC. Retrieved from: https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2018-121_data_access_and_control_in_the_area_of_connected_devices.pdf (30.06.2020).
• European Commission (2019). Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Competition Enforcement in the Pharmaceutical Sector (2009–2017) – European Competition Authorities Working Together for Affordable and Innovative Medicines. Retrived from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/report2019/index.html (30.06.2020).
• European Data Protection Supervisor (2014). Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy. Retrieved from: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/14-03-26_competitition_law_big_data_en.pdf (30.06.2020).
• European Data Protection Board (2018). Statement of the EDPB on the Data Protection Impacts of Economic Concentration. Retrieved from: https://edpb.europa.eu/ourwork-tools/our-documents/autre/statement-edpb-data-protection-impacts-economicconcentration (30.06.2020).
• Gal, M., Aviv, O. (2020). The Competitive Effects of the GDPR, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3548444
• Gardner, R., Ostrom, E., Walker, J.M. (1990). The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems, Rationality and Society, 2, 335–358, https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002003005
• Geradin, D. (2004). Remedies in Network Industries: EC Competition Law vs. Sector-specific Regulation, Cambridge: Intersentia.
• Gervais, D. (2019). Exploring the Interfaces Between Big Data and Intellectual Property Law, JIPITEC, 10, 3, 1–17.
• Graef, I. (2016). EU competition law, data protection and online platforms – Data as Essential Facility, Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer.
• Graef, I., Husovec, M., Purtova, N. (2018). Data Portability and Data Control: Lessons from an Emerging Concept in EU Law, German Law Journal, 19(6), 1359 1398, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200023075
• Graef, I. (2019). Rethinking the Essential Facilities Doctrine in Digital Markets, Revue juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal, 53, 1, 33–72.
• Graef, I., Tombal, T., Streel, A. (2019). Limits and Enablers of Data Sharing: An Analytical Framework for EU Competition, Data Protection and Consumer Law, TILEC Discussion Paper DP 2019-024, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3494212
• Hilty, R.M. (2018). Intellectual Property and Private Ordering. In: R. Dreyfuss, J. Pila (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 898–930.
• Houdijk, J. (2005). The IMS Health Ruling: Some Thought on its Significance for Legal Practice and its Consequences for Future Cases such as Microsoft, European Business Organization Law Review, 6, 3, 467–495,https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752905004672
• Ibáñez Colomo, P. (2018). Competition Law and Innovation: Where Do We Stand?, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 9, 9, 561–562, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy074
• Kathuria, V. (2019). Greed For Data and Exclusionary Conduct in Data-driven Markets, Computer Law Security & Review, 35, 1, 89–102.
• Kathuria, V., Globocnik J. (2020). Exclusionary Conduct in Data-driven Markets: Limitations of Data Sharing Remedy, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnz036
• Lao, M. (2013). Search, Essential Facilities, and the Antitrust Duty to Deal, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11, 5, 276–319.
• Lillà Montagnani, M. (2006). Predatory and Exclusionary Innovation: Which Legal Standard for Software Integration in the Context of the Competition versus Intellectual Property Clash?, The International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 37, 304–335.
• Lindqvist, B. (2016). Big Data, Open Data, Privacy Regulations, Intellectual Property and Competition Law in an Internet of Things World – The Issue of Accessing Data, Stockholm Faculty of Law Research Paper Series N.1/2016 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2891484, 16–18l.
• Maggiolino, M. (2015). The Regulatory Breakthrough of Competition Law: Definitions and Worries. In: J. Drexl and F. Di Porto (ed.), Competition Law As Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 3–26; https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472598.
• Maggiolino, M., Colangelo, G. (2017). BIg Data as a Misleading Facility, European Competition Journal, 249–281.
• McLeod, R. (2016). Novel But a Long Time Coming: the Bundeskartellamt Takes on Facebook, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 7, 6, 367–368.
• Meadows, M. (2015). The Essential Facilities Doctrine in Information Economies: Illustrating Why the Antitrust Duty to Deal is Still Necessary in the New Economy, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 25, 3, 795–830.
• Monti, G. (2008). Managing the Intersection of Utilities Regulation and EC Competition Law, Competition Law Review, 4, 2, 123–145.
• Newman, N. (2014). Search, Antitrust and The Economics of the Control of User Data, Yale Journal of Regulation, 31, 2, 402–454.
• OECD (2019). Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data: Reconciling Risks and Benefits for Data Re-Use Across Societies. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/276aaca8-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/276aaca8-en
• Purtova, N. (2015). The Illusion of Personal Data as No One’s Property, The Illusion of Personal Data as No One’s Property, Law, Innovation and Technology, 7, 1, 83–111.
• Reyna, A. (2020). Optimising Public Enforcement in the Digital Single Market Through Cross-institutional Collaboration, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3529198
• Rubinfeld, D., Gal, M. (2017). Access Barriers to Big Data, Arizona Law Review, 59, 340–381.
• Rubinfeld, D., Gal, M. (2019). Data Standardisation, New York University Law Review, 94, 737–770.
• Schneider, G. (2018). Testing Art. 102 TFUE in the Digital Marketplace: Insights from the Bundeskartellamt’s Investigation Against Facebook, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 9, 4, 213–225.
• Schneider, G. (2019). Disentangling Health Data Networks: A Critical Analysis of Arts 9(2) and 89 GDPR, International Data Privacy Law, 9(4), 253–271.
• Svetiev, Y. (2007). Antitrust Governance: the New Wave of Antitrust, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 38, 595–694.
• Szyszczak, E. (2011). Controlling Dominance in European Markets, Fordham International Law Journal, 33, 6, 1738–1775.
• Tombal, T. (2020). GDPR as a Shield to a Data Sharing Remedy, Working paper presented at the CPDP 2020 Conference – Junior Academic Session. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3516718 (30.06.2020).
• Vestager, M. (2016). Big Data and Competition. Retrieved from: https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20191129222113/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vestager/announcements/big-data-and-competition_en (30.06.2020).
• Vezzoso, S. (2020). All Happy Families are Alike: The EDPB’s Bridges Between Competition and Privacy. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3519974 (30.06.2020).
• Waller, S.W. (2012). Access and Information Remedies in High-Tech Antitrust, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 8, 3, 575–593, https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhs015
• Weber, R.H. (2015). From Competition Law to Sector-specific Regulation in Internet Markets? A Critical Assessment of a Possible Structural Change. In: J. Drexl and F. Di Porto (ed.), Competition Law As Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 239–267, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472598,
• Zoboli, L. (2020). Fuelling the European Data Economy: A Regulatory Assessment of B2B Data Sharing. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3521194 (30.06.2020).

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2020.13.21.6

Biblioteka Nauki

2158991