Resumen Ejecutivo

Agradecemos la oportunidad de presentar nuestros comentarios al Informe Preliminar (en adelante, el Informe[1]) publicado por la Autoridad Investigadora (AI) de la Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (COFECE), luego de culminada su investigación sobre la competencia en el mercado de comercio electrónico. El International Center for Law and Economics (“ICLE”) es un think-tank global de políticas públicas e investigación, no partidista y sin fines de lucro, fundado con el objetivo de construir las bases intelectuales para políticas sensatas y económicamente fundamentadas. ICLE promueve el uso de las metodologías del Análisis Económico del Derecho para informar los debates de política pública, y tiene una larga experiencia en la evaluación de leyes y políticas de competencia. El interés de ICLE es garantizar que la aplicaciones de las leyes de competencia y el impacto de la regulación sobre la competencia se base en reglas claras, precedentes establecidos, evidencia y un análisis económico sólido.

El Informe ha sido emitido en el marco de un procedimiento contemplado en la Ley de Competencia de México, conocido como “Investigaciones para Determinar Facilidades Esenciales o Barreras a la Competencia”, en virtud del cual COFECE iniciará una investigación “cuando existan elementos que sugieran que no existen condiciones efectivas de competencia en un mercado”. La AI es responsable de emitir un informe de investigación preliminar y proponer medidas correctivas. El Pleno de la COFECE podrá posteriormente adoptar o rechazar la propuesta.

Nuestros comentarios sugieren respetuosamente a los Comisionados de la COFECE no seguir las recomendaciones de la AI en lo que se refiere a la competencia en el mercado de comercio electrónico. Si bien el Informe es un esfuerzo loable por comprender el mercado de marketplaces y proteger la competencia en él —competencia que ha sido beneficiosa para los consumidores mexicanos—sus conclusiones y recomendaciones no siguen la evidencia ni los métodos y principios generalmente aceptados del Derecho de la Libre Competencia.

En primer lugar, de acuerdo con la Ley de Competencia mexicana, cualquier investigación debe apuntar a eliminar “restricciones al funcionamiento eficiente de los mercados”. Sin embargo, según información disponible públicamente, Amazon y Mercado Libre (MeLi), las dos empresas identificadas como “dominantes” en el informe, debe su éxito al hecho de que gozan de la preferencia de los consumidores, y cuentan la confianza de éstos, antes que a la existencia de “barreras a la competencia”. El informe también parece ignorar los beneficios para el consumidor que ofrecen los modelos de negocio de Amazon y MeLi (es decir, productos y servicios más baratos, entrega rápida, acceso más fácil a la información para comparar productos, etc.).

En segundo lugar, el Informe define un mercado relevante irrazonablemente “estrecho”, que incluye sólo “mercados en línea en múltiples categorías de productos y que operan a nivel nacional”. Esta definición de mercado ignora a otros minoristas en línea (como Shein o Temu) porque venden una selección menos amplia de productos, agregadores de comercio electrónico (como Google Shopping)  porque son “meros intermediarios” que conectan compradores y vendedores, sitios propios de vendedores (como Apple o Adidas) porque no operan en diversas categorías, así como tiendas físicas. Esta definición, artificialmente estrecha, distorsiona drásticamente la participación de mercado de Amazon y MeLi, haciéndola parecer mucho mayor de lo que realmente es.

En tercer lugar, esta distorsionada definición del mercado relevante conduce hacia la errada conclusión de que Amazon y MeLi ostentan una posición dominante, un requisito previo para la adopción de medidas aplicables a dichas empresas. Esta conclusión es errada porque el Informe utiliza un concepto de “barreras a la entrada” que parece considerar cualquier costo que enfrenten los nuevos participantes como una barrera a la entrada que protege a Amazon y MeLi de la competencia. Como explicamos más adelante, estos costos son costos comerciales regulares, no barreras específicas del mercado que impiden la entrada de nuevos actores. En efecto, la evidencia muestra que, efectivamente, han estado entrando regularmente nuevas empresas en el mercado.

Finalmente, el informe sugiere remedios que perjudicarían a los consumidores en lugar de beneficiarlos. El Informe sugiere obligar a Amazon y MeLi a separar sus servicios de streaming (como Amazon Prime) de sus programas de fidelización. Esto perjudicaría a los consumidores que actualmente disfrutan de beneficios combinados a un precio más bajo. Además, exigir que las plataformas sean interoperables conlas otros proveedores de logística sofocaría la innovación y la inversión, ya que estas plataformas no aprovecharían los beneficios de su infraestructura digital. Esta interoperabilidad obligatoria también podría perjudicar a los consumidores, quienes pueden atribuir fallas relacionadas con la entrega a los marketplaces, en lugar de a los proveedores de logística responsables de ellas, creando así un típico problema de “free-riding”.

I. Introducción

El Informe ha sido emitido en el marco de un procedimiento contemplado en el artículo 94 de la Ley de Competencia de México, conocido como “Investigaciones para Determinar Facilidades Esenciales o Barreras a la Competencia”. Según esta disposición, la COFECE iniciará una investigación “cuando existan elementos que sugieran que no existen condiciones de competencia efectiva en un mercado”. La investigación debería apuntar a determinar la existencia de “barreras a la competencia y al libre acceso a los mercados” o de “facilidades esenciales”.

La AI es responsable de emitir un informe de investigación preliminar y proponer medidas correctivas. El Informe deberá identificar el mercado objeto de la investigación con el fin de que cualquier persona interesada aporte elementos durante la investigación. Una vez finalizada la investigación, la AI emitirá un Informe, incluyendo las medidas correctivas que se consideren necesarias para eliminar las restricciones al funcionamiento eficiente del mercado. Los agentes económicos potencialmente afectados por las medidas correctivas propuestas tienen la oportunidad de comentar y aportar evidencia. El Pleno de la COFECE puede posteriormente adoptar o rechazar las propuestas.

Entendemos y elogiamos las preocupaciones de la COFECE sobre la competencia en los mercados, pero cualquier investigación debe apuntar a eliminar “las restricciones al funcionamiento eficiente de los mercados”, el propósito de la Ley de Competencia de México, según su Artículo 2. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones del Informe no parecen considerar las eficiencias generadas por los marketplaces líderes, lo que puede explicar por qué gozan de la preferencia de los consumidores.

De hecho, según información públicamente disponible, Amazon y MeLi, las dos empresas identificadas como “dominantes” en el informe, son debe su éxito a la preferencia y confianza de los consumidores. Según una fuente[2], por ejemplo:

La popularidad del marketplace de Amazon en México se basa en gran medida en la satisfacción del cliente. Amazon es la segunda plataforma de comercio electrónico más apreciada en México, según  una encuesta de Kantar, con un índice de satisfacción de 8.5 sobre 10. El feedback de los consumidores también es esencial para el éxito del mercado de Amazon, ya que permite a los compradores realizar compras exitosas. . Las reseñas de los consumidores también son esenciales para el éxito del marketplace de Amazon, ya que permiten a los compradores realizar compras informadas. Las buenas críticas destacan la velocidad y confiabilidad de Amazon (el énfasis es nuestro).

Según un estudio publicado por el Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) sobre el uso de plataformas digitales durante la pandemia de Covid-19, el 75.8% de los usuarios afirma estar satisfecho o muy satisfecho con las aplicaciones y páginas web que utiliza para comprar en línea. Precisamente MeLi y Amazon fueron las plataformas más mencionadas con un 67,3% y un 30,3% de menciones, respectivamente.[3]

El informe también parece ignorar los beneficios para el consumidor que ofrecen los modelos de negocio de Amazon MeLi (es decir, productos y servicios más baratos, entrega rápida, acceso más fácil a la información para comparar productos, etc.).

El Informe encuentra evidencia preliminar de que “no existen condiciones de competencia efectiva en el Mercado Relevante de Vendedores y en el Mercado Relevante de Compradores”, así como la existencia de tres “Barreras a la Competencia” que generan restricciones al funcionamiento eficiente de dichos mercados.

Las supuestas barreras consisten en:

1. “Artificialidad” en algunos componentes de los programas de fidelización de los mercados, ya que los servicios integrados en programas de fidelización que, sin estar directamente vinculados a la capacidad del mercado para llevar a cabo o facilitar transacciones entre compradores y vendedores, y que, conjuntamente con los “efectos de red” que se generan en las plataformas, afectan el comportamiento de los compradores;
2. “Opacidad” en el Buy Box[4], considerando que los vendedores en los mercados no tienen acceso a las formas en que Amazon y MeLi eligen los productos colocados en el Buy Box; y
3. Soluciones logísticas, ya que Amazon y MeLi no permiten que todos los proveedores de servicios logísticos accedan a las interfaces de programación de aplicaciones (APIs, por sus siglas en inglés) de sus plataformas, sino que “atan” los servicios de sus marketplaces con sus propios servicios de entrega.

Para eliminar estas supuestas barreras, el Informe propone tres remedios que se aplicarían a Amazon y MeLi:

1. La obligación de “desasociar” los servicios de streaming de los programas de membresía y/o fidelización (por ejemplo, Amazon Prime), así como de cualquier otro servicio no relacionado con servicio de marketplace (por ejemplo, juegos y música, entre otros);
2. La obligación de realizar todas las acciones que sean “necesarias y suficientes” para permitir a los vendedores ajustar libremente sus estrategias comerciales con pleno conocimiento de los procesos de selección del Buy Box; y
3. La obligación de permitir que empresas de logística de terceros se integren en las plataformas de Amazon y MeLi a través de sus respectivas API, y de garantizar que la selección de Buy Box no dependa de la elección del proveedor de logística a menos que afecte los “criterios de eficiencia y rendimiento”.

No estamos de acuerdo con las conclusiones y recomendaciones del Informe por las razones que se exponen a continuación:

II. Una definición del mercado relevante artificialmente restrictiva

Antes que un procedimiento de “abuso de posición dominante”, la investigación de mercado que condujo a la emisión del Informe fue el “procedimiento cuasi-regulatorio” descrito líneas arriba. Pero la redacción del artículo 94 de la Ley Federal de Competencia Económica de México (bajo la cual se autorizó la investigación) sugiere contundentemente que la COFECE tiene que establecer (no simplemente afirmar que existe) una “ausencia de competencia efectiva”. Esto implicaría que existe una “falla del mercado” que impide la competencia, o que existe un agente económico con una posición dominante. El informe intenta mostrar esto último, pero lo hace de manera poco convincente.

Para determinar si una determinada empresa tiene una “posición dominante” (poder monopólico), las agencias de competencia deben primero definir un “mercado relevante” en el que la conducta o modelo de negocio cuestionado tenga un efecto. Aunque es común que las autoridades antimonopolio definan de manera restrictiva los mercados relevantes (a menudo, cuanto más pequeño es el mercado, más fácil es descubrir que el hipotético monopolista es, de hecho, un monopolista), creemos que el Informe va demasiado lejos en el caso que nos ocupa.

El Informe parece seguir el (mal) ejemplo de su homólogo estadounidense, la Comisión Federal de Comercio (FTC). Como explica Geoffrey Manne en un informe sobre la reciente denuncia[5] por monopolización de la FTC contra Amazon:

La denuncia de la FTC contra Amazon describe dos mercados relevantes en los que supuestamente se han producido daños anticompetitivos: (1) el “mercado de los grandes supermercados en línea” y (2) el “mercado de servicios de marketplaces en línea”.

… la demanda de la FTC limita el mercado de los supermercados en línea únicamente a las tiendas en línea, y lo limita aún más a las tiendas que tienen una “gran amplitud y profundidad” de productos. Esto último significa tiendas en línea que venden prácticamente todas las categorías de productos (“como artículos deportivos, artículos de cocina, indumentaria y electrónica de consumo”) y que también tienen una amplia variedad de marcas dentro de cada categoría (como Nike, Under Armour, Adidas , etc.). En la práctica, esta definición excluye los canales privados de marcas líderes (como la tienda en línea de Nike), así como las tiendas en línea que se centran en una categoría particular de productos (como el enfoque de Wayfair en muebles). También excluye las tiendas físicas que todavía representan la gran mayoría de las transacciones minoristas. Las empresas con importantes ventas en línea y físicas podrían contar, pero sólo sus ventas en línea se considerarían parte del mercado.[6]

El Informe hace algo similar. Define dos mercados relevantes;

1. Mercado Relevante de Vendedores: consiste en el servicio de marketplaces para vendedores, con dimensión geográfica nacional.
2. Mercado Relevante de Compradores: consiste en el servicio de marketplaces y tiendas en línea multicategoría para compradores en el territorio nacional, que incluye modelos de negocio de marketplaces (híbridos y no híbridos) y tiendas en línea con múltiples categorías de productos.

Ambos mercados, sin embargo, están definidos de forma irrazonablemente restrictiva. Al alegar que los grandes mercados en línea “se han posicionado como una importante opción”, la agencia ignora la competencia de otros minoristas, tanto on-line como off-line. El Informe ignora otras plataformas de comercio electrónico, como Shein[7] y Temu[8] de China, que han ganado tanto popularidad como participación en el mercado publicitario. El Informe tampoco menciona los agregadores de comercio electrónico como Google Shopping, que permiten a los consumidores buscar casi cualquier producto, compararlos y encontrar ofertas competitivas; así como la competencia de sitios web de comercio electrónico propiedad de los propios vendedores, como Apple o Adidas.

Esta exclusión es, por decir lo menos, discutible. Para competir con una “super-tienda online”, las tiendas online no tienen que contar necesariamente con la misma gama de productos que tienen Amazon o MeLi, porque “los consumidores compran productos, no tipos de tiendas”[9]:

De hecho, parte de la supuesta ventaja de las compras en línea (cuando es una ventaja) es que los consumidores no tienen que agrupar las compras para minimizar los costos de transacción de visitar físicamente a un minorista tradicional. Mientras tanto, otra parte de la ventaja de las compras en línea es la facilidad de comparar precios: los consumidores ni siquiera tienen que cerrar una ventana de Amazon en sus computadoras para verificar alternativas, precios y disponibilidad en otros lugares. Todo esto socava la afirmación de que el “one-stop shopping” es una característica definitoria del supuesto mercado relevante.[10]

El Informe también parece ignorar la competencia que representan por los minoristas tradicionales, que disciplinarían cualquier intento de Amazon o Meli de explotar su poder de mercado. Por supuesto, cuántos consumidores podrían cambiar de proveedor y en qué medida eso afectaría a los marketplaces en cuestión son cuestiones empíricas. Pero no hay duda de que al menos algunos consumidores podrían cambiarse. Sobre el particular, es importante recordar que la competencia se produce en los márgenes. En consecuencia, no es necesario que todos los consumidores cambien para afectar las ventas y las ganancias de una empresa.

El informe hace mención a las ventas a través de las redes sociales, pero no las incluye en el mercado relevante. Desde nuestro punto de vista las redes sociales como canal de ventas deben considerarse como un sustituto razonable de Amazon y Meli, considerando que el 85% de las pequeñas y medianas empresas recurrieron a Facebook, Instagram y WhatsApp durante la pandemia de Covid-19 para publicitar y vender sus productos.[11] La Guía Comercial publicada por la Administración de Comercio Internacional del Departamento de Comercio de Estados Unidos para México informa que “los compradores mexicanos están muy influenciados por las redes sociales a la hora de realizar compras. El cuarenta y tres por ciento de los compradores de comercio electrónico han comprado a través de comercio conversacional o comercio electrónico (ventas a través de Facebook o WhatsApp) y el 29 por ciento a través de “lives” o transmisiones en vivo”.[12]

También hay evidencia empírica de que Amazon no sólo compite, sino que compite intensamente con otros canales de distribución, y tiene un efecto neto positivo en el bienestar de los consumidores mexicanos. Un artículo[13] de 2022 encontró que:

1. El comercio electrónico y los minoristas tradicionales en México operan en un único mercado minorista, altamente competitivo; y,
2. La entrada de Amazon ha generado un importante efecto procompetitivo al reducir los precios minoristas de las tiendas físicas y aumentar la selección de productos para los consumidores mexicanos.

El mismo documento concluye que la entrada al mercado de productos vendidos y entregados por Amazon dio lugar a reducciones de precios de hasta un 28%.[14] A la luz de esta evidencia, creemos que es un error suponer que mercados como Amazon y MeLi no compiten con otros minoristas. Por tanto, estos últimos deberían incluirse en el mercado relevante.

Por si esta estrecha definición del mercado relevante no fuera suficiente, el informe combina las cuotas de mercado de Amazon y MeLi, para concluir que, ambas empresas ostentan más del 85% de las ventas y transacciones en el Mercado Relevante de Vendedores durante el periodo analizado, y el Índice Herfindahl-Hirschman (HHI) supera los dos mil puntos (por tanto, el mercado sería “altamente concentrado”). Asimismo, en el “Mercado Relevante de Compradores” el HHI se estimó, para 2022, en 1614 unidades, y los tres principales participantes concentran el 61% (sesenta y uno por ciento) del mercado. En ambos mercados, los demás participantes tienen una participación significativamente menor.

Pero ¿por qué combinar la cuota de mercado de Amazon y MeLi, como si actuaran como una sola empresa? Dada la definición de mercado de la AI, Amazon y MeLi (por lo menos) estarían compitiendo entre sí. El continuo crecimiento del mercado y la evolución de las respectivas cuotas de mercado de las empresas indican que así es. Un artículo de 2020, por ejemplo, informa que:

Cadenas de autoservicios, departamentales y nativas digitales tienen un objetivo en común: ser quien acapare más mercado en el comercio electrónico en México. En esta batalla, Amazon y Mercado Libre se ponen a la cabeza, pues son las dos firmas que concentran casi un cuarto del total de mercado de este rubro.

Al cierre de 2019, Amazon contaba con un cuota de mercado del 13.4%, que lo colocaba al frente de los demás competidores. Ese mismo año, con 11.4% se encontraba Mercado Libre”.[15]

También es inconsistente con la hipótesis de un mercado con “barreras a la competencia” el hecho de que el mercado de comercio electrónico está creciendo continuamente en México, que ahora es el segundo mercado de comercio electrónico más grande de América Latina.[16]

Es sólo sobre la base de una descripción distorsionada del mercado relevante que puede arribarse a la conclusión de que Amazon y MeLi tienen “el poder de fijar precios” (otra forma de decir “poder de monopolio”). Teniendo en cuenta lo explicado líneas arriba, esa conclusión debe rechazarse.

III. Una injustificada determinación de la existencia de una “posición dominante”

Incluso si se acepta la definición de mercado del Informe y, por lo tanto, se considera que Amazon y MeLi tienen una participación de mercado significativa, ambas empresas aún podrían enfrentar la competencia de nuevos participantes, atraídos al mercado por los precios más altos (u otras condiciones “explotativas”) que cobrarían a los consumidores. Según el Informe, sin embargo, existen varias barreras que obstaculizan “la entrada y la expansión” en ambos mercados relevantes. Entre ellos, el Informe menciona, por ejemplo:

1. Barreras de entrada relacionadas con los altos montos de inversión para el desarrollo del mercado, así como para el desarrollo de herramientas tecnológicas integradas al mismo…. Además, se requieren altos montos de inversión relacionados con el desarrollo de infraestructura logística y en capital de trabajo relacionado con fondos necesarios para cubrir gastos operativos, inventarios, cuentas por cobrar y otros pasivos corrientes; y,
2. Barreras de entrada relacionadas con inversiones considerables en publicidad, marketing y relaciones públicas. Para atraer un número importante de compradores y vendedores a la plataforma que garantice el éxito del negocio, es imperativo contar con una marca bien posicionada, reconocida y con buena reputación.

Sin embargo, y contrariamente a lo que afirma el Informe, estos son costos de hacer negocios, no “barreras de entrada”. Como explicó convincentemente Richard Posner, el término “barrera de entrada” se utiliza comúnmente para describir cualquier obstáculo o costo que enfrentan los entrantes al mercado[17]. Pero según esta definición (aparentemente adoptada por el Informe), cualquier costo es una barrera de entrada. Basándose en la definición más precisa de George Stigler, Posner sugirió definir una barrera de entrada como “una condición que impone a un nuevo entrante costos de producción a largo plazo más altos que los que soportan las empresas que ya están en el mercado”.[18] En otras palabras, bien entendida, una barrera a la entrada es un costo asumido por los nuevos participantes, que no fue asumido por los ya actores establecidos.

La definición de “barreras de entrada” de la AI también contradice la definición dada por la sección IV del artículo 3 de la Ley de Competencia de México, según la cual una barrera a la competencia es:

Cualquier característica estructural del mercado, acto o hecho realizado por Agentes Económicos con el propósito o efecto de impedir el acceso a competidores o limitar su capacidad para competir en los mercados; que impida o distorsione el proceso de competencia y libre acceso a los mercados, así como cualquier disposición legal emitida por cualquier nivel de gobierno que impida o distorsione indebidamente el proceso de competencia y libre acceso a los mercados.

Por supuesto, Amazon y MeLi tienen algunas ventajas sobre otras empresas en términos de infraestructura, conocimientos, escala y goodwill. Pero esas ventajas no cayeron del cielo. Amazon y MeLi los construyeron con el tiempo, invirtiendo (y continuando invirtiendo) a menudo enormes cantidades para lograrlo. Incluso los “efectos de red”, a menudo considerados como una fuente inevitable de monopolio, no son un obstáculo definitivo para la competencia. Como han señalado Evans y Schmalensee:

la investigación sistemática sobre plataformas en línea realizada por varios autores, incluido uno de nosotros, muestra una considerable rotación en el liderazgo de las plataformas en línea en períodos inferiores a una década. luego está la colección de plataformas muertas o marchitas que salpican este sector, incluidas blackberry y windows en los sistemas operativos de teléfonos inteligentes, aol en mensajería, orkut en redes sociales y yahoo en medios masivos en línea.[19]

La idea de que Amazon y MeLi están protegidas por barreras de entrada también se contradice con la entrada de nuevos rivales, como Shein y Temu.

Como se explicó anteriormente, el Informe también combina erróneamente las participaciones de mercado de Mercado Libre y Amazon, para alcanzar una participación de mercado combinada del 85% (ochenta y cinco por ciento) de las ventas y transacciones en el Mercado Relevante de Vendedores; y luego combina la participación de mercado de los tres principales participantes del mercado en el Mercado Relevante para Compradores para alcanzar una participación de mercado del 61% (sesenta y uno por ciento) del mercado. Esto es muy problemático, ya que esas empresas no son una sola entidad económica y, por lo tanto, presumiblemente (a falta de evidencia de colusión) debe asumirse que compiten entre sí.

En todo caso, las cuotas de mercado producidas por el Informe sólo conducen a un IHH alto, lo que a su vez muestra que el mercado está “altamente concentrado” (si se acepta la estrecha definición de mercado del Informe). Pero la concentración es un pobre indicador del poder de mercado. Los economistas han estudiado la relación entre la concentración y diversos indicios potenciales de efectos anticompetitivos (precio, margen, ganancias, tasa de rendimiento, etc.) durante décadas, y la evidencia empírica es más que suficiente para decir que la concentración podría conducir a problemas de competencia.[20] No es per se una prueba de falta de competencia, y mucho menos de una posición dominante.

Como resumió recientemente Chad Syverson:

Quizás el problema conceptual más profundo de la concentración como medida del poder de mercado es que es un resultado, no un determinante central inmutable de cuán competitivo es una industria o un mercado… Como resultado, la concentración es peor que un simple barómetro poco preciso del poder de mercado. En realidad, ni siquiera podemos saber en general en qué dirección está orientado el barómetro.[21]

IV. Los remedios propuestos van a perjudicar al consumidor antes que beneficiarlo

Incluso si aceptáramos la definición de mercado relevante sugerida por el Informe y su determinación de la existencia de una posición dominante, los remedios propuestos —que podrían resumirse en la separación obligatoria de los servicios de streaming de Amazon y MeLi de sus programas de fidelización (como Prime de Amazon) y hacer que (al menos parte de) sus plataformas sean “interoperables” con otros servicios logísticos—perjudicaría a los consumidores, en lugar de beneficiarlos.

Amazon Prime, por ejemplo, ofrece a los consumidores muchos beneficios atractivos: acceso a streaming de vídeo y música; ofertas y descuentos especiales; y, por último, pero no menos importante, envío gratuito en dos días. Según el Informe, estos “son una estrategia artificial que atrae y retiene a los compradores, a la vez que reduce que los compradores y vendedores usen marketplaces alternativos.”

No está del todo claro qué significa el término “artificial” en este contexto, pero parece implicar algo fuera de los límites de la competencia “natural”. Sin embargo, la estrategia de negocio que describe el Informe es la definición misma de competencia. Las empresas que compiten en un mercado siempre eligen un “paquete” de atributos que combinan en un solo producto. En cierta medida “apuestan” por un conjunto de características (funcionalidad, materiales, términos y condiciones) que implican asumir determinado costos, que luego ofrecen a un precio determinado, que puede ser asumido por clientes dispuestos (o no). Incluso con información imperfecta, los mercados (es decir, los vendedores y los consumidores) son los agentes mejor calificados para “decidir” el nivel apropiado de “agrupación” de un producto, no las agencias de competencia o los tribunales.

Un mandato para desagregar los servicios de streaming en realidad degradaría la experiencia de los consumidores online, quienes tendrían que contratar y pagar esos servicios por separado[22]. La prestación independiente de dichos servicios no se beneficiaría de las economías de escala y alcance de Amazon o MeLi y, por tanto, sería más cara. Ofrecer más beneficios a los consumidores a un precio determinado es lo precisamente lo que queremos que hagan los competidores. Tratar el beneficio para el consumidor como un daño es un contrasentido para el Derecho y las políticas de competencia (y, de hecho, para la noción misma de competencia).

Por otro lado, el informe también propone ordenar la apertura del Buy Box y modificar sus reglas, a fin de que sea neutral para todos los proveedores de logística. Exigir que se permita a dichos proveedores ofrecer sus servicios en Amazon o Mercado Libre equivale a considerar estas plataformas como “operadores comunes”, tal como los legisladores y reguladores hicieron con las antiguas redes de telefonía del siglo XX. Sin embargo, esta clasificación y las reglas que de ella se derivan (neutralidad y regulación de precios, entre otras) fueron diseñadas para mercados con monopolios naturales, donde la competencia no es posible, o incluso indeseable.[23] Pero no hay evidencia de que este sea el caso de los marketplaces de comercio electrónico. Por el contrario, las plataformas digitales son mucho más competitivas. En este contexto, el aplicara éstas las normas del tipo “common carrier” sólo crearía “free-riding” e incentivos negativos para la inversión y la innovación (tanto por parte de los actuales participantes del mercado como de los nuevos entrantes). Los vendedores y proveedores de logística tienen muchas otras opciones para acceder a los consumidores. No existe ninguna justificación económica o legal para ordenar su acceso mandatorio a las plataformas de Amazon o MeLi.

En resumen, las conclusiones erróneas del Informe conducen a soluciones aún peores. Tales soluciones no promoverían la competencia en México ni beneficiarían a los consumidores.

[1] El texto completo de el Informe (en su versión pública) está disponible en el siguiente enlace: https://www.cofece.mx/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Dictamen_Preliminar_Version_Publica.pdf.

[2] La Patria, ¿Qué tan popular es el marketplace de Amazon en México? (23 Apr. 2023), https://www.lapatria.com/publirreportaje/que-tan-popular-es-el-marketplace-de-amazon-en-mexico.

[3] Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, Adopción, Uso y satisfacción de las aplicaciones y herramientas digitales para compras y banca en línea, videollamadas, redes sociales, salud y trámites gubernamentales en tiempos de Covid-19 (Jan 19, 2022), https://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/contenidogeneral/usuarios-y-audiencias/aplicacionesyherramientasdigitalesentiemposdecovid19.pdf.

[4] El “Buy Box” o, traduciendo literalmente el “Recuadro de compra” es un cuadro que normalmente se encuentra en el lado derecho de la página web del marketplace cuando los clientes buscan un producto. Estar en esta casilla es una ventaja para el vendedor porque no solo resalta su producto, sino que también facilita el proceso de pago. Por supuesto, esto también es una ventaja para los consumidores, que pueden encontrar y comprar productos más rápido.

[5] Ver: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/1910129-1910130-amazoncom-inc-amazon-ecommerce.

[6] Geoffrey A. Manne, Gerrymandered Market Definitions in FTC v. Amazon (Jan. 26, 2024), https://laweconcenter.org/resources/gerrymandered-market-definitions-in-ftc-v-amazon.

[7] Ver, por ejemplo: Krystal Hu y Arriana McLymore, Exclusive: Fast-fashion giant Shein plans Mexico factory, Reuters (Mayo 24, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/fast-fashion-giant-shein-plans-mexico-factory-sources-2023-05-24.

[8] Ver, por ejemplo: Rising E-commerce Star: The Emergence of Temu in Mexico, BNN (Sep. 25, 2023), https://bnnbreaking.com/finance-nav/rising-e-commerce-star-the-emergence-of-temu-in-mexico.

[9] Geoffrey A. Manne, Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Expansión, El 85% de las Pymes usa redes sociales para vender en línea (28 Jul. 2021), https://expansion.mx/tecnologia/2021/07/28/el-85-de-las-pymes-usa-redes-sociales-para-vender-en-linea.

[12] International Trade Organization, Mexico – Country Commercial Guide, (Nov. 5, 2023), https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/mexico-ecommerce.

[13] Raymundo Campos Vázquez et al., Amazon’s Effect on Prices: The Case of Mexico, Centro de Estudios Económicos, Documentos de Trabajo, Nro. II (2022), https://cee.colmex.mx/dts/2022/DT-2022-2.pdf.

[14] Ibid, p. 23.

[15] El CEO, Amazon y Mercado Libre se disputan la corona del comercio electrónico en México (Mar 17, 2020), https://elceo.com/negocios/amazon-y-mercado-libre-se-discuten-la-corona-del-comercio-electronico-en-mexico.

[16] “Over the last few years, online buying and selling have gained considerable ground in Mexico, so much so that the country has positioned itself as the second largest e-commerce market in Latin America. With a rapidly increasing online buying population, it was forecast that nearly 70 million Mexicans would be shopping on the internet in 2023, a figure that would grow by over 26 percent by 2027.”). Stephanie Chevalier, E-commerce market share in Latin American and the Caribbean 2023, by country, Statista, March 25, 2024, https://www.statista.com/statistics/434042/mexico-most-visited-retail-websites.

[17] Richard Posner, Antitrust Law (2nd. Ed. 2001), pp.73-74.

[18] Ibid., p. 74.

[19] David S.Evans and Richard Schmalensee, Debunking the “network effects” bogeyman, Regulation (Winter 2017-2018), at 39, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2017/12/regulation-v40n4-1.pdf.

[20] Sólo para citar alguos de los ejemplos más relevante de una amplia literatura, ver: Steven Berry, Martin Gaynor, & Fiona Scott Morton, Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization, 33J. Econ. Perspectives 44 (2019); Richard Schmalensee, Inter-Industry Studies of Structure and Performance, in 2 Handbook of Industrial Organization 951-1009 (Richard Schmalensee & Robert Willig, eds., 1989); William N. Evans, Luke M. Froeb, & Gregory J. Werden, Endogeneity in the Concentration-Price Relationship: Causes, Consequences, and Cures, 41 J. Indus. Econ. 431 (1993); Steven Berry, Market Structure and Competition, Redux, FTC Micro Conference (Nov. 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1208143/22_-_steven_berry_keynote.pdf; Nathan Miller, et al., On the Misuse of Regressions of Price on the HHI in Merger Review, 10 J. Antitrust Enforcement 248 (2022).

[21] Chad Syverson, Macroeconomics and Market Power: Context, Implications, and Open Questions 33 J. Econ. Persp. 23, (2019) at 26.

[22] Ver, sobre el particular: Alden Abbott, FTC’s Amazon Complaint: Perhaps the Greatest Affront to Consumer and Producer Welfare in Antitrust History, Truth on the Market (September 27, 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/09/27/ftcs-amazon-complaint-perhaps-the-greatest-affront-to-consumer-and-producer-welfare-in-antitrust-history.

[23] Ver, por ejemplo: Giuseppe Colangelo y Oscar Borgogno, App Stores as Public Utilities?, Truth on the Market (January 19, 2022), https://truthonthemarket.com/2022/01/19/app-stores-as-public-utilities.

Executive Summary

In this comment, we argue that the Federal Reserve Board’s interpretation of the Durbin amendment has had the opposite effect to that intended by the legislation. Specifically, it has harmed lower-income consumers and benefited the shareholders of large merchants. To understand how and why this has happened, we look at two aspects of the provision’s implementation: the price controls the Board imposed through Regulation II, and the competitive-routing requirement included in the Durbin amendment itself. We then consider the likely effects of the changes proposed in the NPRM and conclude that these will exacerbate the harms already inflicted by Regulation II. We encourage the Board to consider alternative approaches that would mitigate Regulation II’s harms, including raising or, ideally, eliminating the cap on interchange fees.

I. Introduction

The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) thanks the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) for the opportunity to comment on this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”), which calls for updates to components of the interchange-fee cap established by Regulation II.[1]

Section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)—commonly referred to as the “Durbin amendment”—required the Board to issue regulations that would limit debit-card interchange fees charged by lenders with assets of more than $10 billion (“covered banks”), such that:

The amount of any interchange transaction fee that an issuer may receive or charge with respect to an electronic debit transaction shall be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.[2]

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) stated in 2010 that his amendment “would enable small businesses and merchants to lower their costs and provide discounts for their customers.”[3] Yet the evidence to date demonstrate that, in practice, the provision has done little, if anything, to reduce costs for small businesses and merchants; indeed, many have seen costs rise.[4] Meanwhile, consumers have seen little, if any, savings from merchants, and have been harmed by higher banking fees.[5]

These problems are, at least in part, a consequence of the way the Board chose to interpret the phrase “reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.” Specifically, as the Board notes in its summary of the present NPRM:

Under the current rule, for a debit card transaction that does not qualify for a statutory exemption, the interchange fee can be no more than the sum of a base component of 21 cents, an ad valorem component of 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction, and a fraud-prevention adjustment of 1 cent if the issuer meets certain fraud-prevention- standards.

The Board now proposes to reduce further the interchange fees that covered banks may charge for debit-card transactions. Specifically:

Initially, under the proposal, the base component would be 14.4 cents, the ad valorem component would be 4.0 basis points (multiplied by the value of the transaction), and the fraud-prevention adjustment would be 1.3 cents for debit card transactions performed from the effective date of the final rule to June 30, 2025.

In this comment, we question the Board’s interpretation of the underlying legislation by citing, among other things, research conducted by employees of the Board and published by the Board.

II. Can Price Controls Be Reasonable and Proportional?

The heart of the matter is the meaning of “reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.” In most respects, the Board has chosen to interpret this phrase narrowly to refer to the pecuniary costs directly associated with the electronic processing of each transaction ($0.21 plus 0.05% of the value of the transaction). But even in deploying this narrow interpretation, the Board has been inconsistent, as:

1. These fees represent, at best, an average of the pecuniary cost; and
2. The Board permits issuers to add $0.01 if it “meets certain fraud-prevention standards.” [6]

This latter component clearly is not transaction-specific, as it is intended to cover the cost of investments made in security infrastructure.

A. What’s in a Cost?

The Board’s approach to “cost” fails to consider the two-sided nature of payment-card markets. A 2017 staff working paper by Board economists Mark D. Manuszak and Krzysztof Wozniak notes:

Interchange fees play a central role in theoretical models of payment card networks, which emphasize the card market’s two-sided nature (for example, Rochet and Tirole (2002)).[7] On one side of the market, interchange fees alter acquirers’ costs, influencing the transaction fees they charge merchants. On the other side of the market, inter- change fees provide a source of revenue that defrays issuers’ costs of card services for accountholders, and, thus, influence fees that banks charge accountholders. As a result, these theoretical models broadly predict that a reduction in interchange fees will induce issuers to increase prices for accountholders.

However, theoretical models of two-sided markets rely on an overly simple characterization of issuers, which diverges from reality in three important ways. First, issuers use nonlinear, account-based pricing rather than per-transaction fees typically assumed by the theory but rarely observed in reality. The theoretical literature on nonlinear pricing emphasizes the sensitivity of consumer demand to different price components. For the debit card industry, it predicts that higher costs will result in increases in prices for which consumers’ demand is less sensitive, and lower or no rises in prices to which the demand is more sensitive.

Second, issuers are multiproduct firms, cross-selling a variety of products in addition to card transactions. The theoretical literature on multiproduct pricing predicts that a firm’s price for one good will internalize its impact on the demand for the firm’s other products. In the debit card industry, this implies that, since a bank is best positioned to offer additional services to consumers who are already its accountholders, the price for such an account is less likely to reflect higher costs than it would otherwise.

Finally, issuers are heterogeneous firms, subject to idiosyncratic cost shocks based on their status under the regulation, and compete for customers in the market for banking services. An issuer’s prices are not determined in isolation by its costs and the market demand, but rather jointly with other issuers’ prices…. [8]

In the decade prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, banks had increased the availability of free checking accounts (Figure I) and reduced the fees on non-interest-bearing checking accounts (Figure II), which had widespread benefits. First, it enabled more people to open and maintain bank accounts, thereby reducing the proportion of unbanked and underbanked Americans. Second, it contributed to a shift toward electronic payments, as many consumers who previously lacked access to payment cards now had a debit card (Figure III). This shift was driven along further by banks offering rewards that encouraged the use of debit cards. Since the provision of checking accounts generates associated costs, banks that expanded their offerings of free and/or low-fee accounts had to recoup those costs elsewhere. They did so, in part, through revenue from interchange fees on debit cards.

In a 2014 staff working paper, Board economists Benjamin S. Kay, Mark D. Manuszak, and Cindy M. Vojtech found that Regulation II reduced annual interchange-fee revenue at covered banks by $14 billion.[9] Meanwhile, in their aforementioned 2017 paper, Manuszak and Wozniak showed that, following Regulation II’s implementation, covered banks sought to recoup the revenue lost due to lower interchange fees by increasing fees on checking accounts; reducing the availability of free checking accounts; and increasing the minimum balance required to maintain a free checking account. This resulted in “lower availability of free accounts, higher monthly fees, lower likelihood that the monthly fee could be avoided, and a higher minimum balance to avoid the fee.”[10]

Moreover, Manuszak and Wozniak show that “checking account pricing at covered banks appears primarily driven by the interchange fee restriction rather than other factors related to the financial crisis or subsequent regulatory initiatives.”[11] Finally, in the version of Kay et al.’s paper published in the Journal of Financial Intermediation, the authors “find that retail banks subject to the cap were able to offset nearly all of lost interchange income through higher fees on deposit services.”[12]

In a more recent study, Georgetown University economist Vladimir Mukharlyamov and University of Pennsylvania economist Natasha Sarin estimated that Regulation II caused covered banks to lose $5.5 billion annually, but that they recouped 42% of those losses from account holders. As a result:

the share of free checking accounts fell from 61 percent to 28 percent as a result of Durbin. Average checking account fees rose from $3.07 per month to $5.92 per month. Monthly minimums to avoid these fees rose by 21 percent, and monthly fees on interest-bearing checking accounts also rose by nearly 14 percent. These higher fees are disproportionately borne by low-income consumers whose account balances do not meet the monthly minimum required for fee waiver.[13]

FIGURE 1: Proportion of Banks Offering Free Checking Accounts, 2003-2016

SOURCE: Bankrate

FIGURE II: Average Fees for Checking Accounts, 1998-2023

SOURCE: Bankrate

FIGURE III: US Shares of Noncash Payments by Transaction Volume, 2000-2020

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on data from Federal Reserve payment studies

B. Effects on ‘Exempt’ Banks and Credit Unions

In a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and the conferees selected to finalize the Dodd-Frank Act, Durbin claimed that:

Under the Durbin amendment, the requirement that debit fees be reasonable does not apply to debit cards issued by institutions with assets under $10 billion. This means that Visa and MasterCard can continue to set the same debit interchange rates that they do today for small banks and credit unions. Those institutions would not lose any interchange revenue that they currently receive.[14]

Yet as can be seen clearly in Figure IV, average per-transaction debit-card interchange fees fell across the board. For covered issuers, average interchange fees per-transaction fell to the regulated maximum for both covered dual-message (signature) transactions and single-message (PIN) transactions immediately following implementation of Regulation II in October 2011. Meanwhile, adjusting for inflation, average fees per-transaction for exempt issuers fell by about 10% for dual-message transactions.

Average fees per-transaction for single-message transactions, however, fell by 30% over the course of eight years. By 2019, they were only marginally higher than the regulated maximum for covered banks, despite the claimed intent to protect smaller issuers from the effects of the debit-interchange cap. The cause of this decline was the addition of the following subsections to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA):[15]

• EFTA Section 920(b)(1) prohibits issuers and payment networks from imposing network-exclusivity arrangements. In particular, all issuers must ensure that debit-card payments can be routed over at least two unaffiliated networks.
• EFTA Section 920(b)(1)(B) prohibits issuers and payment networks from restricting merchants and acquirers’ ability to choose the network over which to route a payment.

These changes, which were dictated by the Durbin amendment, enabled merchants to route transactions over lower-cost networks. That has effectively forced the networks subject to such competition—primarily single-message (PIN) networks—to reduce the fees set for exempt banks so that they are in line with those set for covered banks.

This has inevitably caused many exempt banks and credit unions to experience losses similar to those experienced by covered banks. Indeed, in some cases, the effects have been markedly worse, because smaller banks and credit unions lack the advantage of scale.

FIGURE IV: Fee Per Transaction, Covered v Exempt Users, Single v Dual Message Networks (2011 Dollars)

SOURCE: Federal Reserve, St. Louis FRED^[16]

C. Asymmetric Pass-Through

In a 2014 paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Zhu Wang, Scarlett Schwartz, and Neil Mitchell analyzed the results of a then-recent merchant survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and Javelin Strategy & Research, which sought to understand the Durbin amendment’s effects on merchants and the response of those merchants. The authors found that, while some merchants enjoyed reductions following Regulation II’s implementation in the merchant-discount rate they paid, others saw their debit-card acceptance costs rise.[17] They also found an asymmetric response: merchants who saw their prices increase typically passed those increased costs onto their customers, while very few of those who saw their debit costs decrease passed those savings onto customers.

Using proprietary data from banks and one of the card networks, economists Vladimir Mukharlyamov and Natasha Sarin estimated that merchants passed through “at most” 28% of their debit-card interchange-fee savings to consumers.[18] The “at most” is worth qualifying: the authors base their analysis on savings at gas stations, but they note that:

It turns out, however, that the standard deviation of per-gallon gas prices ($0.252) is 168 times larger than the average per-gallon debit interchange savings ($0.0015). Relatedly, total Durbin savings for gas merchants amount to less than 0.07% of total sales. These points render the quantification of merchants’ pass-through with statistical significance virtually impossible. The existence of payment instruments exempt from Durbin and the presence of a fixed component in the regulation’s interchange-fee formula further complicate pass-through even for merchants willing to share savings, however small, with consumers.[19]

Meanwhile, as noted, they estimated that banks passed through 42% of their interchange-fee revenue losses to consumers. They estimate that the net result of this was a $4 billion transfer to merchants, of which $3.2 billion came directly from banks and $0.8 billion from consumers, who paid $2.3 billion more in higher checking fees, but received only $1.5 billion in lower retail prices.

D. Effects on Lower-Income Consumers

In a 2014 ICLE paper, Todd Zywicki, Geoffrey Manne, and Julian Morris offered a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the best-case scenario for the net effect of Regulation II on the “average” American consumer:

In 2012, the average household spent $30,932 in total on food, apparel, transportation, entertainment, healthcare, and other items that could have been purchased using a payment card (out of a total household expenditure of $51,442). If all of those items were purchased on debit cards and all were purchased from larger retailers and those larger retailers passed on all their savings (averaging 0.7%), then the average household would have saved $216.50. And that is the absolute best case – and most unlikely – scenario. But now assume that average household has two earners, each with a bank account that was previously free but now costs $12 per month. In that case, the household’s costs would have risen by $71.50 as a result of the Durbin Amendment. In other words, even in the best case, lower-middle income and poorer households who have lost access to a free current account—which is likely a majority—will be worse off after the Durbin Amendment.[20]

While the average consumer likely fared poorly, Regulation II was, quite frankly, a disaster for many lower-income consumers. Using data from the Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances, Mukharlyamov and Sarin found that:

over 70 percent of consumers in the lowest income quintile (annual household income of $22,500 or less) bear higher account fees, since they fall below the average post-Durbin account minimum required to avoid a monthly maintenance fee ($1,400). In contrast, only 5 percent of consumers in the highest income quintile (household income of $157,000 or more) fall below this threshold.[21]

Worse, Regulation II almost certainly resulted in an increase in the number of unbanked Americans. Mukharlyamov and Sarin note:

Nearly 8 percent of Americans were unbanked in 2013, with nearly 10 percent of this group becoming unbanked in the last year. Using data from the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, in Table 12 we show that immediately following Durbin there is a significant growth (81 percent increase relative to survey pre-Durbin) in the share of the unbanked population that credits high account fees as the main reason for their not having a bank account. This difference is significant at the 1 percent level.

Respondents in states most impacted by Durbin (those with the highest share of deposits at banks above the $10 billion threshold) are most likely to attribute their unbanked status post-Durbin to high fees (over 15 percent of those surveyed in the highest Durbin tercile). The growth in the recently unbanked (those who had accounts previously but closed them within the last year) is also highest in states with the most Durbin banks, where the increase in account fees is most pronounced. As with the overall sample, these differences are significant at the 1 percent level. This suggests that at least some bank customers respond to Durbin fee increases by severing their banking relationship and potentially turning to more expensive alternative financial services providers such as payday lenders and check-cashing facilities.[22]

III. Conclusion

It is worth noting that the Board was well aware of the two-sided nature of payment-network markets and the implications for setting interchange fees prior to issuing Regulation II. A 2009 staff working paper by Robin A. Prager, Mark D. Manuszak, Elizabeth K. Kiser, and Ron Borzekowski stated:

A few characteristics of an efficient interchange fee are worth noting:

• In general, an efficient interchange fee is not solely dependent on the cost of producing a card-based transaction nor is it equal to zero.

• An efficient interchange fee may yield prices for card services to each side of the market that are “unbalanced” in the sense that one side pays a higher price than the other.

• The efficient interchange fee for a particular card network is difficult to determine empirically.[23]

Based on the foregoing analysis, it appears clear that the optimal debit-card interchange fee is higher than that currently permitted for covered banks under Regulation II—and for exempt banks subject to Durbin’s routing mandates. It is, therefore, rather disconcerting that the Board would contemplate reducing the interchange fee further still in the NPRM to which this comment is addressed. If the Board wished to establish a “reasonable and proportional” fee for debit-card interchange, it would instead raise the cap. Indeed, since it remains “difficult to determine empirically” the efficient interchange fee for any card network, the Board should acknowledge that markets are the best mechanism to establish such fees, and remove the price controls altogether.

[1] Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, 88 Fed. Reg. 78100 (Nov. 14, 2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/14/2023-24034/debit-card-interchange-fees-and-routing.

[2] Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf.

[3] Press Release, Durbin Sends Letter to Wall Street Reform Conferees on Interchange Amendment, Office of Sen. Richard Durbin (May 25, 2010), https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-sends-letter-to-wall-street-reform-conferees-on-interchange-amendment.

[4] Zhu Wang, Scarlett Schwartz, & Neil Mitchell, The Impact of the Durbin Amendment on Merchants: A Survey Study, 100 (3) Econ Quar. (Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Richmond) 183-208 (2014).

[5] Todd J. Zywicki, Geoffrey A. Manne, & Julian Morris, Price Controls on Payment Card Interchange Fees: The U.S. Experience, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-18 (2014); Geoffrey A. Manne, Julian Morris, & Todd J. Zywicki, Unreasonable and Disproportionate: How the Durbin Amendment Harms Poorer Americans and Small Businesses, Int’l. Ctr. Law & Econ. (Apr. 25, 2017), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/icle-durbin_update_2017_final-1.pdf.

[6] 76 Fed. Reg. 43394 (Jul. 20, 2011), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/07/20/2011-16861/debit-card-interchange-fees-and-routing and specifically 76 Fed. Reg. 43466 (Jul. 20, 2011), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-07-20/pdf/2011-16861.pdf; Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing (Regulation II), 12 C.F.R. § 235 (2011), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/part-235.

[7] Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, Cooperation Among Competitors: Some Economics of Payment Card Associations, 33(4) RAND J. Econ. 549-570 (2002).

[8] Mark D. Manuszak & Krzysztof Wozniak, The Impact of Price Controls in Two-sided Markets: Evidence from US Debit Card Interchange Fee Regulation, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-074, Fed. Rsrv. (Jul. 2017), https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/the-impact-of-price-controls-in-two-sided-markets-evidence-from-us-debit-card-interchange-fee-regulation.htm.

[9] Benjamin S. Kay, Mark D. Manuszak, & Cindy M. Vojtech, Bank Profitability and Debit Card Interchange Regulation: Bank Responses to the Durbin Amendment, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2014-77, Fed. Rsrv. (Sep. 2014), https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/bank-profitability-and-debit-card-interchange-regulation-bank-responses-to-the-durbin-amendment.htm.

[10] Supra note 7 at 21.

[11] Id.

[12] Benjamin S. Kay, Mark D. Manuszak, & Cindy M. Vojtech, Competition and Complementarities In Retail Banking: Evidence from Debit Card Interchange Regulation, 34 J. Financ. Intermed. 91–108 (2018), at 104.

[13] Vladimir Mukharlyamov & Natasha Sarin, Price Regulation in Two-Sided Markets: Empirical Evidence from Debit Cards, SSRN (Nov. 24, 2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3328579.

[14] Supra note 3.

[15] 12 C.F.R. § 235.1

[16] Regulation II (Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing), Fed. Rsrv., https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii-data-collections.htm; Consumer Price Index: All Items for the United States, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USACPIALLMINMEI (last visited Aug. 10, 2022).

[17]  Wang et al., supra note 4. Some merchants saw their acceptance costs increase because—prior to Dodd-Frank’s price controls—some merchants, especially smaller merchants, had received discounts on acceptance costs. But the imposition of price ceilings also effectively created a price floor, leading some merchants to pay higher fees than previously.

[18] Supra note 13.

[19] Id. at 4.

[20] Manne, Zywicki, & Morris, supra note 5.

[21] Id. at 30.

[22] Id. at 30-31.

[23] Robin A. Prager, Mark D. Manuszak, Elizabeth K. Kiser, & Ron Borzekowski, Interchange Fees and Payment Card Networks: Economics, Industry Developments, and Policy Issues, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2009-23, Fed. Rsrv. (Jun. 2009), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200923/200923pap.pdf.

A year after it was created by the Government of India’s Ministry of Corporate Affairs to examine the need for a separate law on competition in digital markets, India’s Committee on Digital Competition Law (CDCL) in February both published its report[1] recommending adoption of such rules and submitted the draft Digital Competition Act (DCA), which is virtually identical to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).[2]

The EU has touted its new regulation as essential to ensure “fairness and contestability” in digital markets. And since it entered into force early last month,[3] the DMA has imposed strict pre-emptive rules on so-called digital “gatekeepers,”[4] a cohort of mostly American tech giants like Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.

But despite the impressive public-relations campaign[5] that the DMA’s proponents have been able to mount internationally, India should be wary of reflexively importing these ready-made and putatively infallible solutions that promise to “fix” the world’s most successful digital platforms at little or no cost.

I. Not So Fast

The first question India should ask itself is why?[6] Echoing the European Commission, the CDCL argues that strict ex-ante rules are needed because competition-law investigations in digital markets are too time-consuming. But this could be a feature, not a bug, of competition law. Digital markets often involve novel business models and zero or low-price products, meaning that there is nearly always a plausible pro-competitive explanation for the impugned conduct.

When designing rules and presumptions in a world of imperfect information, the general theme is that, as confidence in public harm goes up, the evidentiary burden must go down. This is why antitrust law tilts the field in the enforcer’s favor in cases involving practices that are known to always, or almost always, be harmful. But none of the conduct covered by the DCA falls into this category. Unlike with, say, price-fixing cartels or territorial divisions, there is currently no consensus that the practices the DMA would prohibit are generally harmful or anticompetitive. To the contrary, when assessing a self-preferencing case against Google in 2018, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found important consumer benefits[7] that outweighed any inconveniences they may impose on competitors.

By imposing per se rules with no scope for consumer-welfare or efficiency exemptions, the DCA could capture swaths of procompetitive conduct. This is a steep—and possibly irrational—price to pay for administrative expediency. Rather than adopt a “speed-at-all-costs” approach, India should design its rules to minimize error costs and ensure the system’s overall efficiency.

II. The Costs of Ignoring Cost-Benefit Analysis

But this cannot be done, or it cannot be done rationally, unless India is crystal clear about what the costs and benefits of digital-competition regulation are. As things stand, it is unclear whether this question has been given sufficient thought.

For one, the DCA’s goals do not seem to align well with competition law. While competition law protects competition for the ultimate benefit of consumers, the DCA—like the DMA—is concerned with aiding rivals, rather than benefiting consumers. Unmooring digital competition regulation from consumer welfare is ill-advised. It opens the enforcer to aggressive rent seeking by private parties with a vested interest in never being satisfied,[8] who may demand far-reaching product-design changes that don’t jibe with what consumers—i.e., the public at-large—actually want.

Indeed, when the system’s lodestar shifts from benefiting consumers to facilitating competitors, there is a risk that the only tangible measure of the law’s success will be the extent to which rivals are satisfied[9] with gatekeepers’ product-design changes, and their relative market-share fluctuations. Sure enough, the European Commission recently cited stakeholders’ dissatisfaction[10] as one of the primary reasons to launch five DMA noncompliance investigations, mere weeks after the law’s entry into force. In the DCA’s case, the Central Government’s ability to control CCI decisions further exacerbates the risk of capture and political decision making.

While digital-competition regulation’s expected benefits remain unclear and difficult to measure, there are at least three concrete types of costs that India can, and should, consider.

First, there is the cost of harming consumers and diminishing innovation. Mounting evidence from the EU demonstrates this to be a very real risk. For example, Meta’s Threads was delayed[11] in the EU block due to uncertainties about compliance with the DMA. The same happened with Gemini, Google’s AI program.[12] Some product functionalities have also been degraded. For instance, in order to comply with the DMA’s strict self-preferencing prohibitions, maps that appear in Google’s search results no longer link to Google Maps, much to the chagrin of European users.[13]

Google has also been forced to remove[14] features like hotel bookings and reviews from its search results. Until it can accommodate competitors who offer similar services (assuming that is even possible), these specialized search results will remain buried several clicks away from users’ general searches. Not only is this inconvenient for consumers, but it has important ramifications for business users.

Early estimates suggest that clicks from Google ads to hotel websites decreased by 17.6%[15]as a result of the DMA. Meanwhile, on iOS, rivals like Meta[16] and Epic Games[17] are finding it harder than they expected to offer competing app stores or payment services. At least some of this is due to the reality that offering safe online services is a costly endeavour. Apple reviews millions of apps every year[18] to weed out bad actors, and replicating this business is easier said than done. In other words, the DMA is falling short even on its own terms.

In other cases, consumers are likely to be saddled with a litany of pointless choices, as well as changes in product design that undermine user experience. For example, the European Commission appears to believe that the best way to ensure that Apple doesn’t favor its own browser on iOS is by requiring consumers to sift through 12 browser offerings[19] presented on a choice screen.[20] But consumers haven’t asked for this “choice.” The simple explanation for the policy’s failure is that, despite the DMA’s insistence to the contrary, users were always free to choose their preferred browser.

Supporters of digital-competition regulation will no doubt retort that India should also consider the costs of inaction. This is certainly true. But it should do so against the background of the existing legal framework, not a hypothetical legal and regulatory vacuum. Digital platforms are already subject to general (and fully functional) competition law, as well as to a range of other sector-specific regulations.

For instance, Amazon and Flipkart are precluded by India’s foreign-direct-investment (FDI) policy from offering first-party sales[21] to end-users on their e-commerce platforms. In addition, the CCI has launched several investigations of digital-platform conduct that would presumably be caught by the DCA, including by Google,[22] Amazon,[23] Meta,[24] Apple,[25] and Flipkart.[26]

The facile dichotomy made between digital-competition regulation and “the digital wild west”[27] is essentially a red herring. Nobody is saying that digital platforms should be above the law. Rather, the question is whether a special competition law is necessary and justified considering the costs such a law would engender, as well as the availability of other legal and regulatory instruments to tackle the same conduct.

This is particularly the case when these legal and regulatory instruments incorporate time-honed analytical tools, heuristics, and procedural safeguards. In 2019, India’s Competition Law Review Committee[28] concluded that a special law was unnecessary. In a report titled “Competition Policy for the Digital Era,”[29] a panel of experts retained by the European Commission reached the same conclusion.

Complicating the question further still is that the DCA would mark a paradigm shift for Indian competition policy. In 2000, the Raghavan Committee Report was crucial in aligning Indian competition law with international best practices, including by moving analysis away from blunt structural presumptions and toward the careful observance of economic effects. As such, it paved the way for the 2002 Competition Act—a milestone of Indian law.

The DCA, by contrast, would overturn these advancements to target companies based on size, obviating any effects analysis. This would amount to taking Indian competition law back to the era of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 (MRTP). Again, is the hodgepodge of products and services known collectively as “digital markets” sufficiently unique to warrant such a drastic deviation from well-established antitrust doctrine?

The third group of costs that the government must consider are the DCA’s enforcement costs. The five DMA noncompliance investigations launched recently by the European Commission have served to dispel the once-common belief that the law would be “self-executing”[30] and that its enforcement would be collaborative, rather than adversarial. With just 80 dedicated staff,[31] many believe the Commission is understaffed[32] to enforce the DMA (initially, the most optimistic officials asked for 220 full-time employees).[33] If the EU—a sprawling regulatory superstate[34]—struggles to find the capacity to deploy digital-competition rules, can India expect to fare any better?

Enforcing the DCA would require expertise in a range of fields, including competition law, data privacy and security, telecommunications, and consumer protection, among others. Either India can produce these new experts, or it will have to siphon them from somewhere else. This raises the question of opportunity costs. Assuming that India even can build a team to enforce the DCA, the government would also need to be reasonably certain that, given the significant overlaps in expertise, these resources wouldn’t yield better returns if allocated elsewhere—such as, for example, in the fight against cartels or other more obviously nefarious conduct.

In short, if the government cannot answer the question of how much the Indian public stands to gain for every Rupee of public money invested into enforcing the DCA, it should go back to the drawing board and either redesign or drop the DCA altogether.

III. India Is Not Europe

When deciding whether to adopt digital-competition rules, India should consider its own interests and play to its strengths. These need not be the same as Europe’s and, indeed, it would be surprising if they were. Despite the European Commission’s insistence to the contrary, the DMA is not a law that enshrines general or universal economic truths. It is, and always has been, an industrial policy tool,[35] designed to align with the EU’s strengths, weaknesses, and strategic priorities. One cannot just assume that these idiosyncrasies translate into the Indian context.

As International Center for Law & Economics President Geoffrey Manne has written,[36] promotion of investment in the infrastructure required to facilitate economic growth and provision of a secure environment for ongoing innovation are both crucial to the success of developing markets like India’s. Securing these conditions demands dynamic and flexible competition policymaking.

For young, rapidly growing industries like e-commerce and other digital markets, it is essential to attract consistent investment and industry know-how in order to ensure that such markets are able to innovate and evolve to meet consumer demand. India has already witnessed a few leading platforms help build the necessary infrastructure during the nascent stages of sectoral development; continued investment along these lines will be essential to ensure continued consumer benefits.

In the above context, emulating the EU’s DMA approach could be a catastrophic mistake. Indian digital platforms are still not as mature as the EU’s, and a copy and paste of the DMA may prove unfit for the particular attributes of India’s market. The DCA could potentially capture many Indian companies. Paytm, Zomato, Ola Cabs, Nykaa, AllTheRooms, Squeaky, FlipCarK, MakeMyTrip, and Meesho (among others) are some of the companies that could be stifled by this new regulatory straitjacket.

This would not only harm India’s competitiveness, but would also deny consumers important benefits. Despite India’s remarkable economic growth over the last decade, it remains underserved by the most powerful consumer and business technologies, relative to its peers in Europe and North America. The priority should be to continue to attract and nurture investment, not to impose regulations that may further slow the deployment of critical infrastructure.

Indeed, this also raises the question of whether the EU’s objectives with the DMA are even ones that India would want to emulate. While the DMA’s effects are likely to be varied, it is clear that one major impetus for the law is distributional: to ensure that platform users earn a “fair share” of the benefits they generate. Such an approach could backfire, however, as using competition policy to reduce profits may simply lead to less innovation and significantly reduced benefits for the very consumers it is supposed to help. This risk is significantly magnified in India, where the primary need is to ensure the introduction and maintenance of innovative technology, rather than fine tuning the precise distribution of its rewards.

A DMA-like approach could imperil the domestic innovation that has been the backbone of initiatives like Digital India[37] and Startup India.[38] Implementation of a DMA-like regime would discourage growing companies that may not be able to cope with the increased compliance burden. It would also impose enormous regulatory burdens on the government and great uncertainty for businesses, as a DMA-like regime would require the government to define and quantify competitive benchmarks for industries that have not yet even grown out of their nascent stages. At a crucial juncture when India is seen as an investment-friendly nation,[39] implementation of a DMA-like regime could create significant roadblocks to investment—all without any obligation on the part of the government to ensure that consumers benefit.

This is because ex-ante regimes impose preemptive constraints on digital platforms, with no consideration of possible efficiencies that benefit consumers. While competition enforcement in general may tend to promote innovation, jurisdictions that do not allow for efficiency defenses tend to produce relatively less innovation, as careful, case-by-case competition enforcement is replaced with preemptive prohibitions that impede experimentation.

Regulation of digital markets that have yet to reach full maturity is bound to create a more restrictive environment that will harm economic growth, technological advancement, and investment. For India, it is crucial that a nuanced approach is taken to ensure that digital markets can sustain their momentum, without being bogged down by various and unnecessary compliance requirements that are likely to do more harm than good.

IV. Conclusion

In a multi-polar world, developing countries can no longer be expected to mechanically adopt the laws and regulations demanded of them by senior partners to trade agreements and international organizations. Nor should they blindly defer to foreign legislatures, who may (and likely do) have vastly different interests and priorities than their own.

Nobody is denying that the EU has provided many useful legal and regulatory blueprints in the past, many of which work just as well abroad as they do at home. But based on what we know so far, the DMA is not poised to become one of them. It is overly stringent, ignores efficiencies, is indifferent about effects on consumers, incorporates few procedural safeguards, is lukewarm on cost-benefit analysis, and risks subverting well-established competition-law principles. These notably include that the law should ultimately protect competition, not competitors.

Rather than instinctively playing catch up, India could ask the hard questions that the EU eschewed for the sake of a quick political victory against popular bogeymen. What is this law trying to achieve? What are the DCA’s supposed benefits? What are its potential costs? Do those benefits outweigh those costs? If the answer to these questions is ambivalent or negative, India’s digital future may well lay elsewhere.

[1] Report of the Committee on Digital Competition Law, Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Feb. 27, 2024), https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open.

[2] Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925.

[3] Press Release, Designated Gatekeepers Must Now Comply With All Obligations Under the Digital Markets Act, European Commission (Mar. 7, 2024), https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/designated-gatekeepers-must-now-comply-all-obligations-under-digital-markets-act-2024-03-07_en.

[4] Press Release, Digital Markets Act: Commission Designates Six Gatekeepers, European Commission (Sep. 6, 2023), https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328.

[5] Press Release, Cade and European Commission Discuss Collaboration on Digital Market Agenda Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.gov.br/cade/en/matters/news/cade-and-european-commission-discuss-collaboration-on-digital-market-agenda.

[6] Summary of Remarks by Jean Tirole, Analysis Group (Sep. 27, 2018), available at https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/uploadedimages/content/insights/ag_features/summary-of-remarks-by-jean-tirole_english.pdf.

[7] Geoffrey A. Manne, Google’s India Case and a Return to Consumer-Focused Antitrust, Truth on the Market (Feb. 8, 2018), https://truthonthemarket.com/2018/02/08/return-to-consumer-focused-antitrust-in-india.

[8] Adam Kovacevich, The Digital Markets Act’s “Statler & Waldorf” Problem, Chamber of Progress, Medium (Mar. 7, 2024), https://medium.com/chamber-of-progress/the-digital-markets-acts-statler-waldorf-problem-2c9b6786bb55.

[9] Id.

[10] Remarks by Executive-Vice President Vestager and Commissioner Breton on the Opening of Non-Compliance Investigations Under the Digital Markets Act, European Commission (Mar. 25, 2024), https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_24_1702.

[11] Makena Kelly, Here’s Why Threads Is Delayed in Europe, The Verge (Jul. 10, 2023), https://www.theverge.com/23789754/threads-meta-twitter-eu-dma-digital-markets.

[12] Andrew Grush, Did You Know Google Gemini Isn’t Available in Europe Yet?, Android Authority (Dec. 7, 2023), https://www.androidauthority.com/did-you-know-google-gemini-isnt-available-in-europe-yet-3392451.

[13] Edith Hancock, ‘Severe Pain in the Butt’: EU’s Digital Competition Rules Make New Enemies on the Internet, Politico (Mar. 25, 2024), https://www.politico.eu/article/european-union-digital-markets-act-google-search-malicious-compliance.

[14] Oliver Bethell, An Update on Our Preparations for the DMA, Google Blog (Jan. 17, 2024), https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/an-update-on-our-preparations-for-the-dma.

[15] Mirai, Linkedin (Apr. 17, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7161330551709138945.

[16] Alex Heath, Meta Says Apple Has Made It ‘Very Difficult’ To Build Rival App Stores in the EU, The Verge (Feb. 2, 2024), https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/1/24058572/zuckerberg-meta-apple-app-store-iphone-eu-sideloading.

[17] Id.

[18] 2022 App Store Transparency Report, Apple Inc. (2023), available at https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/docs/2022-App-Store-Transparency-Report.pdf.

[19] About the Browser Choice Screen in iOS 17, Apple Developer, (Feb. 2024), https://developer.apple.com/support/browser-choice-screen.

[20] Remarks by Executive-Vice President Vestager and Commissioner Breton on the Opening of Non-Compliance Investigations Under the Digital Markets Act, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_24_1702.

[21] Saheli Roy Choudhury, If You Hold Amazon Shares, Here’s What You Need to Know About India’s E-Commerce Law, CNBC (Feb. 4, 2019), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/amazon-how-india-ecommerce-law-will-affect-the-retailer.html.

[22] Press Release, CCI Imposes a Monetary Penalty of Rs.1337.76 Crore on Google for Anti-Competitive Practices in Relation to Android Mobile Devices, Competition Commission of India (Oct. 20, 2022), https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/press-release/details/261/0; CCI Orders Probe Into Google’s Play Store Billing Policies, The Economic Times, (Sep. 7, 2023), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/competition-watchdog-orders-probe-into-googles-play-store-billing-policies/articleshow/108528079.cms.

[23] Why Competition Commission of India Is Investigating Amazon, Outlook, (May. 1, 2022), https://business.outlookindia.com/news/explained-why-is-competition-commission-of-india-probing-amazon-news-194362.

[24] HC Dismisses Facebook India’s Plea Challenging CCI Probe Into Whatsapp’s 2021 Privacy Policy, The Economic Times (Sep. 7, 2023), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/women-participation-in-tech-roles-in-non-tech-sectors-to-grow-by-24-3-by-2027-report/articleshow/109374509.cms.

[25] Case No. 24 of 2021, Competition Commission of India, (Dec. 31, 2021), https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/orders/details/32/0.

[26] Supra note 23.

[27] Anne C. Witt, The Digital Markets Act: Regulating the Wild West, 60(3) Common Market Law Review 625 (2023).

[28] Report of Competition Law Review Committee, Indian Economic Service (Jul. 2019), available at https://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/Report-Competition-CLRC.pdf.

[29] Jacques Crémer, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, & Heike Schweitzer, Competition Policy for the Digital Era, European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (2019), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2763/407537.

[30] Strengthening the Digital Markets Act and Its Enforcement, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (Sep. 7, 2021), available at https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/XYZ/zweites-gemeinsames-positionspapier-der-friends-of-an-effective-digital-markets-act.pdf.

[31] Meghan McCarty Carino, A New EU Law Aims to Tame Tech Giants. But Enforcing It Could Turn out to Be Tricky Marketplace (Mar. 7, 2024), https://www.marketplace.org/2024/03/07/a-new-eu-law-aims-to-tame-tech-giants-but-enforcing-it-could-turn-out-to-be-tricky.

[32] Id.

[33] Luca Bertuzzi & Molly Killeen, Digital Brief: DSA Fourth Trilogue, DMA Diverging Views, France’s Fine for Google, EurActiv (Apr. 1, 2022), https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/digital-brief-dsa-fourth-trilogue-dma-diverging-views-frances-fine-for-google.

[34] Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: The Rise of a Regulatory Superstate in Europe, Columbia Law School (Jan. 8, 2013), https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/brussels-effect-rise-regulatory-superstate-europe.

[35] Lazar Radic, Gatekeeping, the DMA, and the Future of Competition Regulation, Truth on the Market (Nov. 8, 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/11/08/gatekeeping-the-dma-and-the-future-of-competition-regulation.

[36] Geoffrey A. Manne, European Union’s Digital Markets Act Not Suitable for Developing Economies, Including India, The Times of India (Feb. 14, 2023), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/european-unions-digital-markets-act-not-suitable-for-developing-economies-including-india.

[37] Digital India, Common Services Centre (Apr. 18, 2024), https://csc.gov.in/digitalIndia.

[38] Startup India, Government of India (Apr. 16, 2024), https://www.startupindia.gov.in.

[39] Invest India, Government of India (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.investindia.gov.in/why-india.

 

In an April 17 address to United Steelworkers in Pittsburgh, President Joe Biden vowed that his administration would “thwart the acquisition of U.S. Steel by a Japanese company,” Nippon Steel, telling the assembled union members that U.S. Steel “has been an iconic American company for more than a century and it should remain totally American.”

Aside from the impropriety of apparently prejudging a proposed combination currently under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), would blocking this merger make any sense on national security or economic grounds? The answer is no.

Read the full piece here.

Last week was the occasion of the “spring meeting”; that is, the big annual antitrust convention in Washington, D.C. hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA) Antitrust Section. To engage in a bit of self-plagiarism (efficient for me, at least), I had this to say about it last year…

Read the full piece here.

The U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) recent complaint charging Apple with monopolizing smartphone markets is, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, intended as a contribution to the agency’s “enduring legacy of taking on the biggest and toughest monopolies in history.”

Unfortunately, the case has fundamental weaknesses in its assessment of both Apple’s alleged monopoly power and the “exclusionary” nature of its business strategies. These infirmities have been discussed at-length by, among others, Alden Abbott, Herbert Hovenkamp, and Randall Picker.

What appears to have flown under the radar, however, is the DOJ’s flawed understanding of the goals and scope of what it calls “our system of antitrust laws.”

Read the full piece here.

TL;DR

Background: There has been recent legislative movement on a pair of major bills related to children’s online safety and privacy. H.R. 7891, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has 62 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, H.R. 7890, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) also has bipartisan support within the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. At the time of publication, these and a slate of other bills related to children’s online safety and privacy were scheduled to be marked up April 17 by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But… If enacted, the primary effect of these bills is likely to be less free online content for minors. Raising the regulatory burdens on online platforms that host minors, as well as restricting creators’ ability to monetize their content, are both likely to yield greater investment in identifying and excluding minors from online spaces, rather than creating safe and vibrant online ecosystems and content that cater to them. In other words, these bills could lead to minors losing the many benefits of internet usage. A more cost-effective way to address potential online harms to teens and children would be to encourage parents and minors to make use of available tools to avoid those harms and to dedicate more resources to prosecuting those who use online platforms to harm minors.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RAISING THE COST TO SERVE MINORS COULD LEAD TO THEIR EXCLUSION

If the costs of serving minors surpass the revenues that online platforms can generate from serving them, those platforms will invest in excluding underage users, rather than creating safe and vibrant content and platforms for them. 

KOSA will substantially increase the costs that online platforms bear for serving minors. The bill would require a “high impact online company” to exercise “reasonable care” in its design features to “prevent and mitigate” certain harms. These harms include certain mental-health disorders and patterns indicating or encouraging compulsive use by minors, as well as physical violence, cyberbullying, and discriminatory harassment. Moreover, KOSA requires all covered platforms to implement default safeguards to limit design features that encourage minors’ use of the platforms and to control the use of personalized recommendation systems.

RESTRICTING TARGETED ADVERTISING LEADS TO LESS FREE CONTENT

A significant portion of internet content is delivered by what economists call multisided platforms. On one side of the platform, users enjoy free access to content, while on the other side, advertisers are granted a medium to reach users. In effect, advertisers subsidize users’ access to online content. Platforms also collect data from users in order to serve them targeted ads, the most lucrative form of advertising. Without those ads, there would be less revenue to fund access to, and creation of, content. This is no less true when it comes to content of interest to minors.

COPPA 2.0 would expand the protections granted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to users under age 13 to also cover those between 13 and 17 years of age. Where the current law requires parental consent to collect and use persistent identifiers for “individual-specific advertising” directed to children under age 13, COPPA 2.0 would require the verifiable consent of the teen or a parent to serve such ads to teens. 

Obtaining verifiable consent has proven sufficiently costly under the current COPPA rule that almost no covered entities make efforts to obtain it. COPPA has instead largely prevented platforms from monetizing children’s content, which has meant that less of it is created. Extending the law to cover teens would generate similar results. Without the ability to serve them targeted ads, platforms will have less incentive to encourage the creation of teen-focused content.

DE-FACTO AGE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

To comply with laws designed to protect minors, online platforms will need to verify whether its users are minors. While both KOSA and COPPA 2.0 disclaim establishing any age-verification requirements or the collection of any data not already collected “in the normal course of business,” they both establish constructive knowledge standards for violators (i.e., “should have known” or “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances”). Online platforms will need to be able to identify their users who are minors in order to comply with the prohibition on serving them personalized recommendations (KOSA) or targeted advertising (COPPA 2.0). 

Age-verification requirements have been found to violate the First Amendment, in part because they aren’t the least-restrictive means to protect children online. As one federal district court put it: “parents may rightly decide to regulate their children’s use of social media—including restricting the amount of time they spend on it, the content they may access, or even those they chat with. And many tools exist to help parents with this.”

A BETTER WAY FORWARD

Educating parents and minors about those widely available practical and technological tools to mitigate the harms of internet use is a better way to protect minors online, and would pass First Amendment scrutiny. Another way to address the problem would be to increase the resources available to law enforcement to go after predators. The Invest in Child Safety Act of 2024 is one such proposal to give overwhelmed investigators the necessary resources to combat child sexual exploitation.

For more on how to best protect minors online, see “A Law & Economics Approach to Social Media Regulation” and “A Coasean Analysis of Online Age-Verification and Parental-Consent Regimes.” 

In this “Age of the Administrative State,” federal agencies have incredible latitude to impose policies without much direction or input from Congress. President Barack Obama fully pulled off the mask in 2014, when he announced “[w]e are not just going to be waiting for legislation,” declaring “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Subsequent presidents have similarly discovered that they had pens and phones, too.

Read the full piece here.

It’s easy for politicians to make unrealistic promises. Indeed, without a healthy skepticism on the part of the public, they can grow like weeds. In the world of digital policy, the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) has proven fertile ground for just such promises. We’ve been told that large digital platforms are the source of many economic and social ills, and that handing more discretionary power to the government can solve these problems with no apparent side effects or costs.

Read the full piece here.