IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v18y2022i2p483-521..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-Market Impact Of Platforms’ Activities: A Secondary Relevant Market Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ki Jong Lee

Abstract

As platform industries prosper, games are becoming more and more like a team competition rather than an individual sport. Literature on platform envelopment and ecosystems competition shed light on the increasing need to consider cross-market effects of platforms’ activities in competitive analysis. Some established legal principles consider cross-market effects of platforms activities. However, they apply under strict conditions and may not be easily extended to cover the wide variety of platforms’ activities. Thus, this article proposes to introduce a secondary relevant market approach, whereby courts and competition agencies should be obliged to define a secondary relevant market and consider pro- and anticompetitive factors in that market, which significantly affect competition in a primary (original) relevant market. By applying the approach, we could address the increasing need to consider cross-market effect of platforms’ activities, without interrupting the keynote of traditional market definition, which focuses on close substitutes. It also enables us to fairly distribute the burden of proof among the parties. The approach can be applied in various contexts, such as platform market definition, nascent acquisition, platform envelopment, and ecosystems competition. It could also help legislators to pursue better targeted regulatory intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Ki Jong Lee, 2022. "Cross-Market Impact Of Platforms’ Activities: A Secondary Relevant Market Approach," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 483-521.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:18:y:2022:i:2:p:483-521.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhac004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:18:y:2022:i:2:p:483-521.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.