IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021ispecial1p120-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abuse of Dominant Position on Digital Market: Is the European Commission Going back to the Old Paradigm?

Author

Listed:
  • Daria Kostecka-Jurczyk

Abstract

Purpose: The study concerns abuse of a dominant position on digital markets on the example of practices used by Google. The main purpose of the article is to draw attention to the lack of appropriate tools for assessing abuse of a dominant position in such markets. Methodology: The article was prepared based on the method of analyzing documents (mainly the European Commission and FTC) and literature on competition low and policy. The article also uses legal acts and the guidelines of the European Commission. Findings: The study adopts the hypothesis that the European Commission is limited to instruments created for the needs of mature markets, whose attribute is static competition and not innovation. Such tools are not appropriate to assess the behavior of entrepreneurs on digital markets and should be used in a selective and flexible manner. The Commission's rigid approach to the application of existing mechanisms may harm innovation and expansion of companies operating under dynamic competition. Practical implications: The article critically assesses the approach of the European Commission and indicates the factors that should be considered in assessing the abuse of a dominant position by entrepreneurs on digital markets. Originality/Value: As a result, it was pointed out that abuse of a dominant position on digital markets is a relatively new practice and their antitrust assessment mechanisms have not yet been developed. This study provides a voice in the discussion on how antitrust authorities approach towards the assessment of abuse of dominance on digital markets and their sanctioning. At the same time, it draws attention to the need to develop appropriate tools for assessing a dominant position and then its abuse in markets with dynamic competition and whose main attribute is innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Daria Kostecka-Jurczyk, 2021. "Abuse of Dominant Position on Digital Market: Is the European Commission Going back to the Old Paradigm?," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 120-132.
  • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:special1:p:120-132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2033/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pietro Crocioni, 2018. "On The Relevant Cost Standard For Price–Cost Test In Abuses Of Dominance," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 262-291.
    2. Ioannis Kokkoris, 2018. "The Google Saga: episode I," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2-3), pages 462-490, September.
    3. Robert H. Bork & J. Gregory Sidak, 2012. "What Does The Chicago School Teach About Internet Search And The Antitrust Treatment Of Google?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 663-700.
    4. J. Gregory Sidak, 2008. "Abolishing The Price Squeeze As A Theory Of Antitrust Liability," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 279-309.
    5. Damien Geradin & Robert O'Donoghue, 2005. "The concurrent application of competition law and regulation: the case of margin squeeze abuses in the telecommunications sector," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 355-425.
    6. Gunnar Niels, 2019. "Transaction Versus Non-Transaction Platforms: A False Dichotomy In Two-Sided Market Definition," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2-3), pages 327-357.
    7. John M Yun, 2018. "Understanding Google’S Search Platform And The Implications For Antitrust Analyses," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 311-329.
    8. Magali Eben, 2018. "Fining Google: a missed opportunity for legal certainty?," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 129-151, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Haucap & Torben Stühmeier, 2016. "Competition and antitrust in Internet markets," Chapters, in: Johannes M. Bauer & Michael Latzer (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, chapter 9, pages 183-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Miller, Tracy, 2021. "Evaluating Arguments for Antitrust Action against Tech Companies," Annals of Computational Economics, George Mason University, Mercatus Center, May.
    3. Sun Me Choi & Christian Fernando Libaque-Saenz & Sang-woo Lee & Myeong-Cheol Park, 2016. "Margin squeeze in the Internet backbone interconnection market: a case study of Korea," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 531-542, March.
    4. Liliane Karlinger & Dimitrios Magos & Pierre Régibeau & Hans Zenger, 2020. "Recent Developments at DG Competition: 2019/2020," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(4), pages 783-814, December.
    5. Zhijun Chen, 2021. "Price Squeezes as an Exploitative Abuse," Monash Economics Working Papers 2021-05, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. Calzada, Joan & Martínez-Santos, Fernando, 2014. "Broadband prices in the European Union: Competition and commercial strategies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 24-38.
    7. Blanckenburg Korbinian von, 2014. "Führt Google Shopping zu einer neuen Art von Wettbewerbsproblem?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 63(3), pages 240-256, December.
    8. Kuchinke, Björn A. & Vidal, Miguel, 2016. "Exclusionary strategies and the rise of winner-takes-it-all markets on the Internet," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 582-592.
    9. Justus Haucap & Ulrich Heimeshoff, 2014. "Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 49-61, February.
    10. Howell, Bronwyn, 2008. "The End or the Means? The Pursuit of Competition in Regulated Telecommunications Markets," Working Paper Series 4002, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    11. Joan Calzada & Nestor Duch-Brown & Ricard Gil, 2021. "Do search engines increase concentration in media markets?," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2021/415, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    12. Howell, Bronwyn, 2009. "Politics and the Pursuit of Efficiency in New Zealand's Telecommunications Sector 1987-2008," Working Paper Series 19134, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    13. Jullien, Bruno & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2021. "The Economics of Platforms: A Theory Guide for Competition Policy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    14. A. Douglas Melamed & Nicolas Petit, 2019. "The Misguided Assault on the Consumer Welfare Standard in the Age of Platform Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(4), pages 741-774, June.
    15. Bougette, Patrice & Deschamps, Marc & Marty, Frã‰Dã‰Ric, 2015. "When Economics Met Antitrust: The Second Chicago School and the Economization of Antitrust Law," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 313-353, June.
    16. Rey, Patrick & Jullien, Bruno & Saavedra, Claudia, 2014. "The Economics of Margin Squeeze," CEPR Discussion Papers 9905, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2015. "10 Jahre YouTube: Von dem Aufstieg einer Plattform und der Entwicklung neuer Märkte zum Kollateralschaden einer Google-Regulierung?," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0014, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1op860fg2l8f4p3acvk2hj0tmn is not listed on IDEAS
    19. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19134 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Christoph Kleineberg & Thomas Wein, 2015. "Relevance and Detection Problems of Margin Squeeze – The Case of German Gasoline Prices," Working Paper Series in Economics 355, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    21. Stephen Martin & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2013. "Market Performance Implications of the Transfer Price Rule," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 466-487, October.
    22. Cong Gu & Benfu Lv & Geng Peng, 2022. "Google and Alibaba s Different Stock Performances after Antitrust Investigations, the Reasons and Enlightenment," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 26-36, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Abuse of dominant position; competition policy; dominant position; digital market; exclusionary practices.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:special1:p:120-132. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.