Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics”

Markets involving data and personal information have unique characteristics, but do not present such novel challenges that the well-developed tools of antitrust are incapable of incorporating them. Nonetheless, some critics continue to press for misguided antitrust intervention into data markets, often based on fundamental misunderstandings. 

For a start, commonly repeated analogies between data and oil are highly misleading. Oil is physical commodity that is highly rivalrous (a user cannot use oil without impairing others’ ability to use the same oil) and readily excludable (it can easily be stored in ways that prevent use by non-authorized parties). By contrast, data is simply information that bears some of the traits of a public good: it is often non-rivalrous in consumption (the same information may be used by multiple parties without any degradation) and difficult to appropriate because it is difficult to prevent others’ use of the same data, it is difficult to ensure optimal investment in its creation). Moreover, in most instances, it is not data that is scarce, but the expertise required to generate and analyze it. In any case, most successful internet companies started life with little to no data. This suggests that data is more a byproduct of the ongoing operation of internet platforms than it is a critical input for their creation.

Further, data is unlikely to constitute a barrier to entry, and even less likely to amount to an essential facility. As George Stigler famously argued, a barrier to entry is “[a] cost of producing that must be borne by a firm which seeks to enter an industry but is not borne by firms already in the industry.” There is no reason that the cost of obtaining data for a new entrant should be any higher than it was for an incumbent. In fact, the opposite will often turn out to be true.

Other ills that allegedly plague data-rich markets (and the merits of proposed solutions) are equally dubious. This is notably the case for the relationship between mandated data portability and competition. Contrary to what some scholars have advanced, it is far from clear that mandated data portability will increase consumer welfare in data-reliant markets. Not only is this type of portability unlikely to significantly affect switching costs for consumers but, even if it did, this would have ambiguous consumer welfare consequences (as is generally the case for consumer lock-in and regulatory interventions to overcome it). To make matters worse, mandated data portability is not without its risks. Most notably, data portability poses data security and user privacy risks.

Likewise, fears of costly price discrimination and widespread algorithmic collusion are greatly overblown. While it is true that big data may have a transformative effect on firms’ ability to price discriminate, there is no strong reason to believe that this would have a detrimental effect on consumer welfare. Instead, as with all forms of price discrimination, it may potentially expand output and allow less well-off consumers to participate in markets they might otherwise be priced out of. Similarly, the idea that big data and algorithms will lead to collusion is deeply flawed. Fears of collusion rest on the faulty premise that online marketplaces and the use of big data will dramatically increase transparency, thus facilitating collusion. In fact, the opposite is just as likely (and, in any case, the manifest benefits of increased transparency, likely outweigh the speculative costs).

In short, the advent of data-enabled markets does not have implications that support the calls for a significant expansion of antitrust tools and antitrust enforcement being made. Data is not irrelevant, of course, but it is just one amongst a plethora of factors that enforcement authorities and courts should consider when they analyze firms’ behavior.

Click here to read the full comments.

Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics:

The consumer welfare standard (“CWS”) has been the subject of much discussion lately, largely driven by a seeming uptick in criticism of the standard. This criticism falls generally into two camps. On the one hand, the CWS is understood to be the broadly correct, if imperfect, touchstone for antitrust enforcement. Proponents of this view support the consumer-focused approach to antitrust but nevertheless often recognize the inherent shortcomings of the CWS (endemic to any general legal principle applied in complex and evolving economic circumstances), and particular areas where its operationalization can and should be improved (e.g. accounting for innovation harms or properly defining who counts as a “consumer”).

On the other hand, the CWS is objected to per se by some critics as an improper or incurably deficient guiding principle for antitrust enforcement. Proponents of this view see the CWS as inconsistent with the proper goals of antitrust, which should, they contend, focus on control of threats to the “process of competition” (as opposed to the welfare of consumers). Many of the adherents to this perspective also contend that antitrust should address private-sector economic threats to the democratic process more broadly. In both cases a key component of the antipathy to the CWS is that it has allowed for the sustained presence of large corporations in the polity — a presence that is alleged to threaten, simply by its existence, both competitive and democratic welfare.

Yet, as discussed in this comment, the CWS continues to be a vital component of modern antitrust analysis. Despite the characterization of its critics, the CWS is not a single tool which gauges all conduct with a simplistic price analysis. Rather, it is a methodology by which to arrange the array of legal and economic tools that guide antitrust enforcement and adjudication and to evaluate their efficacy. 

For example, and as discussed at length in this comment, the CWS is completely capable of relying upon the tool of presumptions for certain modes of analysis. Yet presumptions are neither good nor bad per se, but are merely a single tool, the utility of which depends upon the method of use. When applied within the CWS framework, presumptions can serve procompetitive ends. By contrast, when employed to satisfy the ends of advocates who wish to impose hypothetical “ideal” structures on the economy, presumptions can be — and often are — destructive.

Click here to read the full comments.

An increasing number of scholars and advocates have argued recently that US antitrust law should be “reformed” in order to invigorate antitrust enforcement and sidestep the judicially-imposed constraints that have developed over antitrust’s 100 year history. Explicitly or not, these efforts seek to bring about a shift in US antitrust that would make it more closely resemble competition law in Europe. While these scholars and advocates assert that their proposals would improve economic conditions in the US, economic logic and the apparent reality from Europe suggest otherwise.

***

Although the differences between US and EU antitrust law can appear minor or superficial at a glance, even small differences can have important consequences, and the cumulative effect of the differences is significant. Although the Commission is often quite careful to couch its decision-making in economic language, in practice, analytical economic administration of antitrust is far from the norm.

***

Despite asserting that EU competition law is “better” than that of the US, and that emulating the EU will improve economic conditions in the US, references to the likely outcome — positive or negative — of the expanded antitrust experiment in the EU are not provided. Moreover, as noted below, to the extent the European experience is assessed at all, these assessments are manifestly unreliable.