ICLE Academic Affiliate Ivan Png produced a video with Yun Hou and Ivan Png  describing a benchmarking experiment they did with food-stalls hawkers in Singapore, which found that showing firm owners their relative performance increased exit among poor performers. The full video is embedded below.

Abstract

This paper is a reaction to AWE v. Goldsmith (Warhol), which found that Warhol’s adaptation of a photograph of Prince, taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith, is not protected from copyright liability by the fair use defense. The Warhol dissent accuses the majority of being overly concerned with the commercial character of Warhol’s use, while the dissent emphasizes the artistically transformative quality of Warhol’s adaptation. These different approaches provide strong evidence that the theory of fair use remains unclear to the Court. There is a need for a simple positive theory of thefair use doctrine. That need was largely met by Gordon’s article in 1982. I aim to develop the economic theory of fair use further. especially in light of case law since 1982. A theory of fair use is at the same time a theory of the scope of copyright. I clarify the economic basis for jair use, taking advantage of basic concepts in welfare economics. As a general matter, the optimal scope of copyright minimizes the sum of dynamic (having to do with incentives over time) and static (having to do with allocation at a given time) welfare costs. One proposition advanced is that the concepts of economic complementarity, substitutability, and preference correlation provide crucial analytical tools in resolving fair use disputes. This proposition may seem narrow, but it stands the approach taken in the cases on its head. I explain how the approach urged here works by applying it to several cases, including Warhol and Google v. Oracle.

ICLE Academic Affiliate Jonah Gelbach was a guest on Berkeley Law’s Voices Carry podcast to discuss how aggregating federal court data can help researchers tease out critical trends, as well as efforts to push the federal judiciary to drop the paywall on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records database. The full episode is embedded below.

ICLE Academic Affiliate David Teece was a guest on the Insights from the Top podcast to discuss the importance of gender and racial diversity in corporate governance, the state of securitization in emerging markets, what ownership means for rising attorneys, and how the firm has remained strong for more than a century. The full episode is embedded below.

If you live in Europe, you may have noticed issues with some familiar online services. From consent forms to reduced functionality and new fees, there is a sense that platforms like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Apple are changing the way they do business. 

Many of these changes are the result of a new European regulation called the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which seeks to increase competition in online markets. Under the DMA, so-called “gatekeepers” must allow rivals to access their platforms. Having taken effect March 7, firms now must comply with the regulation, which explains why we are seeing these changes unfold today.

Read the full piece here.

DEFINITION

The substantial lessening of competition or “SLC” test is a standard that regulatory authorities use to assess the legality of proposed mergers and acquisitions. The SLC test examines whether a prospective merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in a given market. Its purpose is to prevent mergers that increase prices, reduce output, limit consumer choice, or stifle innovation as a result of a decrease in competition. Mergers that substantially lessen competition are prohibited under the laws of the jurisdictions that utilize this test, such as the USA, EU, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Nigeria, amongst others.

Read the full piece here.

Introduction

We thank the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for this opportunity to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”).

The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center whose work promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public-policy debates. We believe that intellectually rigorous, data-driven analysis will lead to efficient policy solutions that promote consumer welfare and global economic growth.[1]

ICLE’s scholars have written extensively on privacy and data-security issues, including those related to children’s online safety and privacy. We also previously filed comments as part of the COPPA Rule Review and will make some of the same points below.[2]

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) sought to strike a balance in protecting children without harming the utility of the internet for children. As Sen. Richard Bryan (D-Nev.) put it when he laid out the purpose of COPPA:

The goals of this legislation are: (1) to enhance parental involvement in a child’s online activities in order to protect the privacy of children in the online environment; (2) to enhance parental involvement to help protect the safety of children in online fora such as chatrooms, home pages, and pen-pal services in which children may make public postings of identifying information; (3) to maintain the security of personally identifiable information of children collected online; and (4) to protect children’s privacy by limiting the collection of personal information from children without parental consent. The legislation accomplishes these goals in a manner that preserves the interactivity of children’s experience on the Internet and preserves children’s access to information in this rich and valuable medium.[3]

In other words, COPPA was designed to protect children from online threats by promoting parental involvement in a way that also preserves a rich and vibrant marketplace for children’s content online. Consequently, the pre-2013 COPPA Rule did not define personal information to include persistent identifiers standing alone. It is these persistent identifiers that are critical for the targeted advertising that funds the interactive online platforms and the creation of children’s content the legislation was designed to preserve.

COPPA applies to the “operator of any website or online service” that is either “directed to children that collects personal information from children” or that has “actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child.”[4] These operators must “obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information.” The NPRM, following the mistaken 2013 amendments to the COPPA Rule, continues to define “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that are necessary for the targeted advertising undergirding the internet ecosystem.

Below, we argue that, before the FTC moves further toward restricting platform operators and content creators’ ability to monetize their work through targeted advertising, it must consider the economics of multisided platforms. The current path will lead to less available free content for children and more restrictions on their access to online platforms that depend on targeted advertising. Moreover, the proposed rules are inconsistent with the statutory text of COPPA, as persistent identifiers do not by themselves enable contacting specific individuals. Including them in the definition of “personal information” is also contrary to the statute’s purpose, as it will lead to a less vibrant internet ecosystem for children.

Finally, there are better ways to protect children online, including by promoting the use of available technological and practical solutions to avoid privacy harms. To comply with existing First Amendment jurisprudence regarding online speech, it is necessary to rely on these less-restrictive means to serve the goal of protecting children without unduly impinging their speech interests online.

I. The Economics of Online Multisided Platforms

Most of the “operators of websites and online services” subject to the COPPA Rule are what economists call multisided markets, or platforms.[5] Such platforms derive their name from the fact that they serve at least two different types of customers and facilitate their interaction. Multisided platforms generate “indirect network effects,” described by one economist as a situation where “participants on one side value being able to interact with participants on the other side… lead[ing] to interdependent demand.”[6]

Online platforms provide content to one side and access to potential consumers on the other side. In order to keep demand high, online platforms often offer free access to users, whose participation is subsidized by those participants on the other side of the platform (such as advertisers) that wish to reach them.[7] This creates a positive feedback loop in which more participants on one side of the platform leads to more participants on the other.

This dynamic is also true of platforms with content “directed to children.” Revenue is collected not from those users, but primarily from the other side of the platform—i.e., advertisers who pay for access to the platform’s users. To be successful, online platforms must keep enough—and the right type of—users engaged to maintain demand for advertising.

Moreover, many “operators” under COPPA are platforms that rely on user-generated content. Thus, they must also consider how to attract and maintain high-demand content creators, often accomplished by sharing advertising revenue. If platforms fail to serve the interests of high-demand content creators, those creators may leave the platform, thus reducing its value.

Online platforms acting within the market process are usually going to be the parties best-positioned to make decisions on behalf of platforms users. Operators with content directed to children may even compete on privacy policies and protections for children by providing tools to help users avoid what they (or, in this context, their parents and guardians) perceive to be harms, while keeping users on the platform and maintaining value for advertisers.[8]

There may, however, be examples where negative externalities[9] stemming from internet use are harmful to society more broadly. A market failure could result, for instance, if platforms’ incentives lead them to collect too much (or the wrong types of) information for targeted advertising, or to offer up content that is harmful for children or keeps them hooked to using the platform.

In situations where there are negative externalities from internet use, there may be a case to regulate online platforms in various ways. Any case for regulation must, however, acknowledge potential transaction costs, as well as how platforms and users may respond to changes in those costs. To get regulation right, the burden of avoiding a negative externality should fall on the least-cost avoider.

The Coase Theorem, derived from the work of Nobel-winning economist Ronald Coase[10] and elaborated on in the subsequent literature,[11] helps to explain the issue at-hand:

1. The problem of externalities is bilateral;
2. In the absence of transaction costs, resources will be allocated efficiently, as the parties bargain to solve the externality problem;
3. In the presence of transaction costs, the initial allocation of rights does matter; and
4. In such cases, the burden of avoiding the externality’s harm should be placed on the least-cost avoider, while taking into consideration the total social costs of the institutional framework.

In one of Coase’s examples, the noise from a confectioner using his candy-making machine is a potential cost to the doctor next door, who consequently cannot use his office to conduct certain testing. Simultaneously, the doctor moving his office next door to the confectioner is a potential cost to the confectioner’s ability to use his equipment.

In a world of well-defined property rights and low transaction costs, the initial allocation of rights would not matter, because the parties could bargain to overcome the harm in a mutually beneficial manner—i.e., the confectioner could pay the doctor for lost income or to set up sound-proof walls, or conversely, the doctor could pay the confectioner to reduce the sound of his machines.[12] But since there are transaction costs that prevent this sort of bargain, it is important whether the initial right is allocated to the doctor or the confectioner. To maximize societal welfare, the cost should be placed on the entity that can avoid the harm at the lowest cost.[13]

In the context of the COPPA Rule, website operators and online services create incredible value for their users, but they also can, at times, impose negative externalities relevant to children who use their services. In the absence of transaction costs, it would not matter whether operators must obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information, or whether the initial burden is placed on parents and children to avoid the harms associated with such collection, use, or disclosure.

But given that there are transaction costs involved in obtaining (and giving) verifiable parental consent,[14] it matters how the law defines personal information (which serves as a proxy for a property right, in Coase’s framing). If personal information is defined too broadly and the transaction costs for providers to gain verifiable parental consent are too high, the result may be that the societal benefits of children’s internet use will be lost, as platform operators restrict access beyond the optimum level.

The threat of liability for platform operators under COPPA also risks excessive collateral censorship.[15] This arguably has already occurred, as operators like YouTube have restricted content creators’ ability to monetize their work through targeted advertising, leading on balance to less children’s content. By wrongly placing the burden on operators to avoid harms associated with targeted advertising, societal welfare is reduced, including the welfare of children who no longer get the benefits of that content.

On the other hand, there are situations where website operators and online services are the least-cost avoiders. For example, they may be the parties best-placed to monitor and control harms associated with internet use in cases where it is difficult or impossible to hold those using their platforms accountable for the harms they cause.[16] In other words, operators should still be held liable under COPPA when they facilitate adults’ ability to message children, or to identify a child’s location without parental consent, in ways that could endanger children.[17] Placing the burden on children or their parents to avoid such harms could allow operators to impose un- or undercompensated harms on society.

Thus, in order to get the COPPA Rule’s balance right, it is important to determine whether it is the operators or their users who are the least-cost avoiders. Placing the burden on the wrong parties would harm societal welfare, either by reducing the value that online platforms confer to their users, or in placing more uncompensated negative externalities on society.

II. Persistent Identifiers and ‘Personal Information’

As mentioned above, under COPPA, a website operator or online service that is either directed to children or that has actual knowledge that it collects personal information from a child must obtain “verifiable parental consent” for the “collection, use or disclosure” of that information.[18] But the NPRM continues to apply the expanded definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers from the 2013 amendments.

COPPA’s definition for personal information is “individually identifiable information” collected online.[19] The legislation included examples such as first and last name; home or other physical address; as well as email address, telephone number, or Social Security number.[20] These are all identifiers obviously connected to people’s real identities. COPPA does empower the FTC to determine whether other identifiers should be included, but the commission must permit “the physical or online contacting of a specific individual”[21] or “information concerning the child or the parents of that child that the website collects online from the child and combines with an identifier described in this paragraph.”[22]

In 2013, the FTC amended the definition of personal information to include:

A persistent identifier that can be used to recognize a user over time and across different Web sites or online services. Such persistent identifier includes, but is not limited to, a customer number held in a cookie, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a processor or device serial number, or unique device identifier.[23]

The NPRM here continues this error.

Neither IP addresses nor device identifiers alone “permit the physical or online contacting of a specific individual,” as required by 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8)(F). A website or app could not identify personal identity or whether a person is an adult or child from these pieces of information alone. In order for persistent identifiers, like those relied upon for targeted advertising, to be counted as personal information under 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8)(G), they need to be combined with other identifiers listed in the definitions. In other words, it is only when a persistent identifier is combined with a first and last name, an address, an email, a phone number, or a Social Security number that it should be considered personal information protected by the statute.

While administrative agencies receive Chevron deference in court challenges when definitions are ambiguous, this text, when illuminated by canons of statutory construction,[24] is clear. The canon of ejusdem generis applies when general words follow an enumeration of two or more things.[25] The general words are taken to apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those mentioned specifically. Persistent identifiers, such as cookies, bear little resemblance to the other examples of “personally identifiable information” listed in the statute, such as first and last name, address, phone, email, or Social Security number. Only when combined with such information could a persistent identifier become personal information.

The NPRM states that the Commission is “not persuaded” by this line of argumentation, pointing back to the same reasoning offered in the 2013 amendments. The NPRM states that it is “the reality that at any given moment a specific individual is using that device,” which “underlies the very premise behind behavioral advertising.”[26] Moreover the NPRM reasons that “while multiple people in a single home often use the same phone number, home address, and email address, Congress nevertheless defined these identifiers as ‘individually identifiable information’ in the COPPA statute.”[27] But this reasoning is flawed.

While multiple people regularly share an address, and sometimes even a phone number or email, each of these identifiers allows for contacting an individual person in a way that a persistent identifier simply does not. In each of those cases, bad actors can use such information to send direct messages to people (phone numbers and emails); find their physical location (address); and potentially to cause them harm.

A persistent identifier, on its own, is not the same. Without the subpoena of an internet service provider (ISP) or virtual private network (VPN), a bad actor that intended harm could not tell either where the person to whom the persistent identifier is assigned is located, or to message them directly. Persistent identifiers are useful primarily to online platforms in supporting their internal operations (which the NPRM continues to allow) and serving users targeted advertising.

Moreover, the fact that bills seeking to update COPPA—proposed but never passed by Congress—have proposed expanding the definition of personal information to include persistent identifiers suggests that the FTC has asserted authority that it does not have under the current statute.[28] Under Supreme Court precedent,[29] when considering whether an agency has the authority that it claims to pass rules, courts must consider whether Congress has rejected proposals to expand the agency’s jurisdiction in similar ways.

The NPRM also ignores the practical realities of the relationship between parents and children when it comes to devices and internet use. Parental oversight is already built into any type of advertisement (including targeted ads) that children see. Few children can view those advertisements without their parents providing them a device and the internet access to do so. Even fewer children can realistically make their own purchases. Consequently, the NPRM misunderstands targeted advertising in the context of children’s content, which is not based on any knowledge about the users as individuals, but on the browsing and search history of the device they happen to be using.

Children under age 13, in particular, are extremely unlikely to have purchased the devices they use; to have paid for the internet access to use those devices; or to have any disposable income or means to pay for goods and services online. Thus, contrary to the NPRM’s assumptions, the actual “targets” of this advertising—even on websites or online services that host children’s content—are the children’s parents.

This NPRM continues the 2013 amendments’ mistake and will continue to greatly reduce the ability of children’s content to generate revenue through the use of relatively anonymous persistent identifiers. As we describe in the next section, the damage done by the 2013 amendments is readily apparent, and the Commission should take this opportunity to rectify the problem.

III. More Parental Consent, Less Children’s Content

As outlined above, in a world without transaction costs—or, at least, one in which such costs are sufficiently low—verifiable parental consent would not matter, because it would be extremely easy for a bargain to be struck between operators and parents. In the real world, however, transaction costs exist. In fact, despite the FTC’s best efforts under the COPPA Rule, the transaction costs associated with obtaining verifiable parental consent continue to be sufficiently high as to prevent most operators from seeking that consent for persistent identifiers. As we stated in our previous comments, the economics are simple: if content creators lose access to revenue from targeted advertising, there will be less content created from which children can benefit.

FIGURE 1: Supply Curve for Children’s Online Content

The supply curve for children’s online content shifts left as the marginal cost of monetizing it increases. The marginal cost of monetizing such content is driven upward by the higher compliance costs of obtaining verifiable parental consent before serving targeted advertising. This supply shift means that less online content will be created for children.

These results are not speculative at this point. Scholars who have studied the issue have found the YouTube settlement, made pursuant to the 2013 amendments, has resulted in less child-directed online content, due to creators’ inability to monetize that content through targeted advertising. In their working paper “COPPAcalypse? The YouTube Settlement’s Impact on Kids Content,”[30] Garrett Johnson, Tesary Lin, James C. Cooper, & Liang Zhong summarized the issue as follows:

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and its implementing regulations, broadly prohibit operators of online services directed at children under 13 from collecting personal information without providing notice of its data collection and use practices and obtaining verifiable parental consent. Because obtaining verifiable parental consent for free online services is difficult and rarely cost justified, COPPA essentially acts as a de facto ban on the collection of personal information by providers of free child-directed content. In 2013, the FTC amended the COPPA rules to include in the definition of personal information “persistent identifier that can be used to recognize a user over time and across different Web sites or online services,” such as a “customer number held in a cookie . . . or unique device identifier.” This regulatory change meant that, as a practical matter, online operators who provide child-directed content could no longer engage in personalized advertising.

On September 4, 2019, the FTC entered into a consent agreement with YouTube to settle charges that it had violated COPPA. The FTC’s allegations focused on YouTube’s practice of serving personalized advertising on child-directed content at children without obtaining verifiable parental consent. Although YouTube maintains it is a general audience website and users must be at least 13 years old to obtain a Google ID (which makes personalized advertising possible), the FTC complaint alleges that YouTube knew that many of its channels were popular with children under 13, citing YouTube’s own claims to advertisers. The settlement required YouTube to identify child-directed channels and videos and to stop collecting personal information from visitors to these channels. In response, YouTube required channel owners producing [“made-for-kids”] MFK content to designate either their entire channels or specific videos as MFK, beginning on January 1, 2020. YouTube supplemented these self-designations with an automated classifier designed to identify content that was likely directed at children younger than 13. In so doing, YouTube effectively shifted liability under COPPA to the channel owners, who could face up to $42,530 in fines per video if they fail to self-designate and are not detected by YouTube’s classifier.[31]

By requiring verifiable parental consent, the rule change and settlement increased the transaction costs imposed on online platforms that host content created by others. YouTube’s economically rational response was to restrict content creators’ ability to benefit from (considerably more lucrative) personalized advertising. The result was less content created for children, including by driving out less-profitable content creators:

Consistent with a loss in personalized ad revenue, we find that child-directed content creators produce 13% less content and pivot towards producing non-child-directed content. On the demand side, views of child-directed channels fall by 22%. Consistent with the platform’s degraded capacity to match viewers to content, we find that content creation and content views become more concentrated among top child-directed YouTube channels.[32]

This is not the only finding regarding COPPA’s role in reducing the production of content for children. Morgan Reed—president of the App Association, a global trade association for small and medium-sized technology companies—presented extensively at the FTC’s 2019 COPPA Workshop.[33] Reed’s testimony detailed that the transaction costs associated with obtaining verifiable parental consent did little to enhance parental control, but much to reduce the quality and quantity of content directed to children.

It is worth highlighting, in particular, Reed’s repeated use of the words “friction,” “restriction,” and “cost” to describe how COPPA’s institutional features affect the behavior of social-media platforms, parents, and children. While noting that general audience content is “unfettered, meaning that you do not feel restricted by what you can get to, how you do it. It’s easy, it’s low friction. Widely available. I can get it on any platform, in any case, in any context and I can get to it rapidly,” Reed said that COPPA-regulated apps and content are, by contrast, all about:

Friction, restriction, and cost. Every layer of friction you add alters parent behavior significantly. We jokingly refer to it as the over the shoulder factor. If a parent wants access to something and they have to pass it from the back seat to the front seat of the car more than one time, the parent moves on to the next thing. So the more friction you add to an application directed at children the less likely it is that the parent is going to take the steps necessary to get through it because the competition, of course, is as I said, free, unfettered, widely available. Restriction. Kids balk against some of the restrictions. I can’t get to this, I can’t do that. And they say that to the parent. And from the parent’s perspective, fine, I’ll just put in a different age date. They’re participating, they’re parenting but they’re not using the regulatory construction that we all understand. …

The COPPA side, expensive, onerous or friction full. We have to find some way around that. Restrictive, fewer features, fewer capabilities, less known or available, and it’s entertaining-ish. …

Is COPPA the barrier? I thought this quote really summed it up. “Seamlessness is expected. But with COPPA, seamlessness is impossible.” And that has been one of the single largest areas of concern. Our folks are looking to provide a COPPA compliant environment. And they’re finding doing VPC is really hard. We want to make it this way, we just walked away. And why do they want to do it? We wanted to create a hub for kids to promote creativity. So these are not folks who are looking to take data and provide interest based advertising. They’re trying to figure out how to do it so they can build an engaging product. Parental consent makes the whole process very complicated. And this is the depressing part. …

We say that VPC is intentional friction. It’s clear from everything we’ve heard in the last two panels that the authors of COPPA, we don’t really want information collected on kids. So friction is intentional. And this is leading to the destruction of general audience applications basically wiping out COPPA apps off the face of the map.[34]

Reed’s use of the word “friction” is particularly enlightening. The economist Mike Munger of Duke University has often described transaction costs as frictions—explaining that, to consumers, all costs are transaction costs.[35] When higher transaction costs are imposed on social-media platforms, end users feel the impact. In this case, the result is that children and parents receive less quality children’s apps and content.

Thus, when the NPRM states that “the Commission [doesn’t] find compelling the argument that the 2013 persistent identifier modification has caused harm by hindering the ability of operators to monetize online content through targeted advertising,”[36] in part because “the 2013 Amendments permit monetization… through providing notice and seeking parental consent for the use of personal information for targeted advertising,”[37] it misses how transaction costs prevent this outcome. The FTC should not ignore the data provided by scholars who have researched the question, nor the direct testimony of app developers.

IV. Lower-Cost Ways to Avoid Harms to Children

Widely available practical and technological means are a lower-cost way to avoid the negative externalities associated with internet use, relative to verifiable-parental-consent laws. As NetChoice put it in the complaint the group filed against Arkansas’ social-media age-verification law, “[p]arents have myriad ways to restrict their children’s access to online services and to keep their children safe on such services.”[38]

NetChoice’s complaint recognized the subjective nature of negative externalities, stating:

Just as people inevitably have different opinions about what books, television shows, and video games are appropriate for minors, people inevitably have different views about whether and to what degree online services are appropriate for minors. While many minors use online services in wholesome and productive ways, online services, like many other technologies, can be abused in ways that may harm minors.[39]

They proceeded to list all the ways that parents can take control and help their children avoid online harms, including with respect to the decisions to buy devices for their children and to set terms for how and when they are permitted to use them.[40] Parents can also choose to use tools offered by cell-phone carriers and broadband providers to block certain apps and sites from their children’s devices, or to control with whom their children can communicate and for how long they can use the devices.[41]

NetChoice also pointed to wireless routers that allow parents to filter and monitor online content;[42] parental controls at the device level;[43] third-party filtering applications;[44] and numerous tools offered by NetChoice members that offer relatively low-cost monitoring and control by parents, or even by teen users acting on their own behalf.[45] Finally, they noted that, in response to market demand,[46] NetChoice members expend significant resources curating content to ensure that it is appropriate.[47]

Similarly, parents can protect their children’s privacy simply by taking control of the devices they allow their children to use. Tech-savvy parents can, if they so choose, install software or use ad-blockers to prevent collection of persistent identifiers.[48] Even less tech-savvy parents can make sure that their children are not subject to ads and tracking simply by monitoring their device usage and ensuring they only use YouTube Kids or other platforms created explicitly for children. In fact, most devices and operating systems now have built-in, easy-to-use controls that enable both monitoring and blocking of children’s access to specific apps and websites.[49]

This litany of less-restrictive means to accomplish the goal of protecting children online bears repeating, because even children have some First Amendment interests in receiving online speech.[50] If a court were to examine the COPPA Rule as a speech regulation that forecloses children’s access to online content, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. This means the rules would need to be the least-restrictive possible in order to fulfill the statute’s purpose. Educating parents and children on the available practical and technological means to avoid harms associated with internet use, including the collection of data for targeted advertising, would clearly be a less-restrictive alternative to a de facto ban of targeted advertising.

A less-restrictive COPPA rule could still enhance parental involvement and protect children from predators without impairing the marketplace for children’s online content significantly. Parents already have the ability to review their children’s content-viewing habits on devices they buy for them. A COPPA rule that enhances parental control by requiring verifiable parental consent when children are subject to sharing personal information—like first and last name, address, phone number, email address, or Social Security number—obviously makes sense, along with additions like geolocation data. But it is equally obvious that it is possible to avoid, at lower cost, the relatively anonymized collection of persistent identifiers used to support targeted ads through practical and technological means, without requiring costly verifiable parental consent.

V. Perils of Bringing More Entities Under the COPPA Rule

The costs of the COPPA Rule would be further exacerbated by the NPRM’s proposal to modify the criteria for determining whether a site or service is directed toward children.[51] These proposed changes, particularly the reliance on third-party services and comparisons with “similar websites or online services,” raise significant concerns about both their practical implementation and potential unintended consequences. The latter could include further losses of online content for both children and adults, as content creators drawn into COPPA’s orbit lose access to revenue from targeted advertising.

The FTC’s current practice employs a multi-factor test to ascertain whether a site or service is directed at children under 13. This comprehensive approach considers various elements, including subject matter, visual and audio content, and empirical evidence regarding audience composition.[52] The proposed amendments aim to expand this test by introducing such factors as marketing materials, representations to third parties and, notably, reviews by users or third parties and comparisons with similar websites or services.[53]

The inclusion of third-party reviews and comparisons with similar services as factors in determining a site’s target audience introduces a level of ambiguity and unreliability that would be counterproductive to COPPA’s goals. Without clear standards to evaluate their competence or authority, relying on third-party reviews would leave operators without a solid foundation upon which to assess compliance. This ambiguity could lead to overcompliance. In particular, online platforms that carry third-party content may err on the side of caution in order to align with the spirit of the rule. This threatens to stifle innovation and free expression by restricting creators’ ability to monetize content that has any chance to be considered “directed to children.” Moreover, to avoid this loss of revenue, content creators could shift their focus exclusively to content clearly aimed only at adults, rather than that which could be interesting to adults and children alike.

Similarly, the proposal to compare operators with “similar websites or online services” is fraught with challenges. The lack of guidance on how to evaluate similarity or to determine which service sets the standard for compliance would increase burdens on operators, with little evidence of tangible realized benefits. It’s also unclear who would make these determinations and how disputes would be resolved, leading to further compliance costs and potential litigation. Moreover, operators may be left in a position where it is impractical to accurately assess the audience of similar services, thereby further complicating compliance efforts.

Given these considerations, the FTC should not include reliance on third-party services or comparisons with similar websites or online services in its criteria for determining whether content is directed at children under 13. These approaches introduce a level of uncertainty and unreliability that could lead to overcompliance, increased costs, and unintended negative impacts on online content and services, including further restrictions on content creators who create content interesting to both adults and children. Instead, the FTC should focus on providing clear, direct guidelines that allow operators to assess their compliance with COPPA confidently, without the need to rely on potentially biased or manipulative third-party assessments. This approach will better serve the FTC’s goal of protecting children’s online privacy, while ensuring a healthy, innovative online ecosystem.

Conclusion

The FTC should reconsider the inclusion of standalone persistent identifiers in the definition of “personal information.” The NPRM continues to enshrine the primary mistake of the 2013 amendments. This change was inconsistent with the purposes and text of the COPPA statute. It already has reduced, and will continue to reduce, the availability of children’s online content.

[1] ICLE has received financial support from numerous companies, organizations, and individuals, including firms with interests both supportive of and in opposition to the ideas expressed in this and other ICLE-supported works. Unless otherwise noted, all ICLE support is in the form of unrestricted, general support. The ideas expressed here are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of ICLE’s advisors, affiliates, or supporters.

[2] Much of these comments are adapted from ICLE’s 2019 COPPA Rule Review Comments, available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/COPPA-Comments-2019.pdf; Ben Sperry, A Law & Economics Approach to Social-Media Regulation, CPI TechREG Chronicle (Feb. 29, 2022), https://laweconcenter.org/resources/a-law-economics-approach-to-social-media-regulation; Ben Sperry, A Coasean Analysis of Online Age-Verification and Parental-Consent Regimes (ICLE Issue Brief, Nov. 9, 2023), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Issue-Brief-Transaction-Costs-of-Protecting-Children-Under-the-First-Amendment-.pdf.

[3] 144 Cong. Rec. 11657 (1998) (Statement of Sen. Richard Bryan), available at https://www.congress.gov/crec/1998/10/07/CREC-1998-10-07.pdf#page=303.

[4] 15 U.S.C. §?6502(b)(1)(A).

[5] See, e.g., Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 1 J. Euro. Econ. Ass’n 990 (2003).

[6] David S. Evans, Multisided Platforms in Antitrust Practice, at 3 (Oct. 17, 2023), forthcoming, Michael Noel, Ed., Elgar Encyclopedia on the Economics of Competition and Regulation, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4606511.

[7] For instance, many nightclubs hold “ladies’ night” events in which female patrons receive free admission or discounted drinks in order to attract more men, who pay full fare for both.

[8] See, e.g., Ben Sperry, Congress Should Focus on Protecting Teens from Real Harms, Not Targeted Ads, The Hill (Feb. 16, 2023), https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3862238-congress-should-focus-on-protecting-teens-from-real-harms-not-targeted-ads.

[9] An externality is a side effect of an activity that is not reflected in the cost of that activity—basically, what occurs when we do something whose consequences affect other people. A negative externality occurs when a third party does not like the effects of an action.

[10] See Ronald H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J. L. & Econ. 1 (1960)

[11] See Steven G. Medema, The Coase Theorem at Sixty, 58 J. Econ. Lit. 1045 (2020).

[12] See Coase, supra note 8, at 8-10.

[13] See id. at 34 (“When an economist is comparing alternative social arrangements, the proper procedure is to compare the total social product yielded by these different arrangements.”).

[14] See Part III below.

[15] See Felix T. Wu, Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Liability, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 293, 295-96 (2011); Geoffrey A. Manne, Ben Sperry, & Kristian Stout, Who Moderates the Moderators: A Law & Economics Approach to Holding Online Platforms Accountable Without Destroying the Internet, 49 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L J. 26, 39 (2022); Ben Sperry, The Law & Economics of Children’s Online Safety: The First Amendment and Online Intermediary Liability, Truth on the Market (May 12 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/05/12/the-law-economics-of-childrens-online-safety-the-firstamendment-and-online-intermediary-liability.

[16] See Geoffrey A. Manne, Kristian Stout, & Ben Sperry, Twitter v. Taamneh and the Law & Economics of Intermediary Liability, Truth on the Market (Mar. 8, 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/03/08/twitter-v-taamneh-and-the-law-economics-of-intermediary-liability; Ben Sperry, Right to Anonymous Speech, Part 2: A Law & Economics Approach, Truth on the Market (Sep. 6, 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/09/06/right-to-anonymous-speech-part-2-a-law-economics-approach.

[17] See Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya On the Issuance of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), at 3-4 (Dec. 20, 2023), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/BedoyaStatementonCOPPARuleNPRMFINAL12.20.23.pdf (listing examples of these types of enforcement actions).

[18] 15 U.S.C. §?6502(b)(1)(A)(ii).

[19] 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8).

[20] 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8)(A)-(E).

[21] 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8)(F).

[22] 15 U.S.C. §?6501(8)(G).

[23] 16 CFR § 312.2 (Personal information)(7).

[24] See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 n.9 (1984) (“If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.”).

[25] What is EJUSDEM GENERIS?, The Law Dictionary: Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. (last accessed Dec. 9, 2019), https://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-generis.

[26] NPRM at 2043.

[27] Id.

[28] See, e.g., Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, S. 1418, §2(a)(3) 118th Cong. (2024).

[29] See FDA v. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. 120, 148-50 (2000).

[30] Garrett A. Johnson, Tesary Lin, James C. Cooper, & Liang Zhong, COPPAcalypse? The YouTube Settlement’s Impact on Kids Content, SSRN (Apr. 26, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4430334.

[31] Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).

[32] Id. at 1.

[33] The Future of the COPPA Rule: An FTC Workshop Part 2, Federal Trade Commission (Oct. 7, 2019), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1535372/transcript_of_coppa_workshop_part_2_1.pdf.

[34] Id. at 6 (emphasis added).

[35] See Michael Munger, To Consumers, All Costs are Transaction Costs, Am. Inst. Econ. Rsch. (June 13, 2023), https://www.aier.org/article/to-consumers-all-costs-are-transaction-costs.

[36] NPRM at 2043.

[37] Id. at 2034, n. 121.

[38] See NetChoice Complaint, NetChoice LLC v. Griffin, NO. 5:23-CV-05105, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154571 (W.D. Ark. 2023), available at https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/NetChoice-v-Griffin_-Complaint_2023-06-29.pdf.

[39] Id. at para. 13.

[40] See id. at para. 14

[41] See id.

[42] See id. at para 15.

[43] See id. at para 16.

[44] See id.

[45] See id. at para. 17, 19-21

[46] Sperry, supra note 8.

[47] See NetChoice Complaint, supra note 36, at para. 18.

[48] See, e.g., Mary James & Catherine McNally, The Best Ad Blockers 2024, all about cookies (last updated Feb. 29, 2024), https://allaboutcookies.org/best-ad-blockers.

[49] See, e.g., Parental Controls for Apple, Android, and Other Devices, internet matters (last accessed Mar. 7, 2024), https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/smartphones-and-other-devices.

[50] See, e.g., Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 794-95 (2011); NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, 2023 WL 5660155, at *17 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2023) (finding Arkansas’s Act 689 “obviously burdens minors’ First Amendment rights” by “bar[ring] minors from opening accounts on a variety of social media platforms.”).

[51] See NPRM at 2047.

[52] See id. at 2046-47.

[53] Id. at 2047 (“Additionally, the Commission believes that other factors can help elucidate the intended or actual audience of a site or service, including user or third-party reviews and the age of users on similar websites or services.”).

Abstract

Physician non-compete agreements may have significant competitive implications, and effects on both providers and patients, but they are treated variously under the law on a state-by-state basis. Reviewing the relevant law and the economic literature cannot identify with confidence the net effects of such agreements on either physicians or health care delivery with any generality. In addition to identifying future research projects to inform policy, it is argued that the antitrust “rule of reason” provides a useful and established framework with which to evaluate such agreements in specific health care markets and, potentially, to address those agreements most likely to do significant damage to health care competition and consumers.

Executive Summary

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s call for contributions on competition in “Virtual Worlds”.[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan global research and policy center founded with the goal of building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public-policy debates and has longstanding expertise in the evaluation of competition law and policy. ICLE’s interest is to ensure that competition law remains grounded in clear rules, established precedent, a record of evidence, and sound economic analysis.

The metaverse is an exciting and rapidly evolving set of virtual worlds. As with any new technology, concerns about the potential risks and negative consequences that the metaverse may bring have moved policymakers to explore how best to regulate this new space.

From the outset, it is important to recognize that simply because the metaverse is new does not mean that competition in this space is unregulated or somehow ineffective. Existing regulations may not explicitly or exclusively target metaverse ecosystems, but a vast regulatory apparatus already covers most aspects of business in virtual worlds. This includes European competition law, the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”), the General Data Protection Act (“GDPR), the Digital Services Act (“DSA”), and many more. Before it intervenes in this space, the commission should carefully consider whether there are any metaverse-specific problems not already addressed by these legal provisions.

This sense that competition intervention would be premature is reinforced by three important factors.

The first is that competition appears particularly intense in this space (Section I). There are currently multiple firms vying to offer compelling virtual worlds. At the time of writing, however, none appears close to dominating the market. In turn, this intense competition will encourage platforms to design services that meet consumers’ demands, notably in terms of safety and privacy. Nor does the market appear likely to fall into the hands of one of the big tech firms that command a sizeable share of more traditional internet services. Meta notoriously has poured more than $3.99 billion into its metaverse offerings during the first quarter of 2023, in addition to $13.72 billion the previous calendar year.[2] Despite these vast investments and a strategic focus on metaverse services, the company has, thus far, struggled to achieve meaningful traction in the space.[3]

Second, the commission’s primary concern appears to be that metaverses will become insufficiently “open and interoperable”.[4] But to the extent that these ecosystems do, indeed, become closed and proprietary, there is no reason to believe this to be a problem. Closed and proprietary ecosystems have several features that may be attractive to consumers and developers (Section II). These include improved product safety, performance, and ease of development. This is certainly not to say that closed ecosystems are always better than more open ones, but rather that it would be wrong to assume that one model or the other is optimal. Instead, the proper balance depends on tradeoffs that markets are better placed to decide.

Finally, timing is of the essence (Section III). Intervening so early in a fledgling industry’s life cycle is like shooting a moving target from a mile away. New rules or competition interventions might end up being irrelevant. Worse, by signaling that metaverses will be subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny for the foreseeable future, the commission may chill investment from the very firms is purports to support. In short, the commission should resist the urge to intervene so long as the industry is not fully mature.

I. Competing for Consumer Trust

The Commission is right to assume, in its call for contributions, that the extent to which metaverse services compete with each other (and continue to do so in the future) will largely determine whether they fulfil consumers’ expectations and meet the safety and trustworthiness requirements to which the commission aspires. As even the left-leaning Lessig put it:

Markets regulate behavior in cyberspace too. Prices structures often constrain access, and if they do not, then busy signals do. (America Online (AOL) learned this lesson when it shifted from an hourly to a flat-rate pricing plan.) Some sites on the web charge for access, as on-line services like AOL have for some time. Advertisers reward popular sites; online services drop unpopular forums. These behaviors are all a function of market constraints and market opportunity, and they all reflect the regulatory role of the market.[5]

Indeed, in a previous call for contributions, the Commission implicitly recognized the important role that competition plays, although it frames the subject primarily in terms of the problems that would arise if competition ceased to operate:

There is a risk of having a small number of big players becoming future gatekeepers of virtual worlds, creating market entry barriers and shutting out EU start-ups and SMEs from this emerging market. Such a closed ecosystem with the prevalence of proprietary systems can negatively affect the protection of personal information and data, the cybersecurity and the freedom and openness of virtual worlds at the same time.[6]

It is thus necessary to ask whether there is robust competition in the market for metaverse services. The short answer is a resounding yes.

A. Competition Without Tipping

While there is no precise definition of what constitutes a metaverse—much less a precise definition of the relevant market—available data suggests the space is highly competitive. This is evident in the fact that even a major global firm like Meta—having invested billions of dollars in its metaverse branch (and having rebranded the company accordingly)—has struggled to gain traction.[7]

Other major players in the space include the likes of Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, which all have somewhere between 70 and 200 million active users.[8] This likely explains why Meta’s much-anticipated virtual world struggled to gain meaningful traction with consumers, stalling at around 300,000 active users.[9] Alongside these traditional players, there are also several decentralized platforms that are underpinned by blockchain technology. While these platforms have attracted massive investments, they are largely peripheral in terms of active users, with numbers often only in the low thousands.[10]

There are several inferences that can be drawn from these limited datasets. For one, it is clear that the metaverse industry is not yet fully mature. There are still multiple paradigms competing for consumer attention: game-based platforms versus social-network platforms; traditional platforms versus blockchain platforms, etc. In the terminology developed by David Teece, the metaverse industry has not yet reached a “paradigmatic” stage. It is fair to assume there is still significant scope for the entry of differentiated firms.[11]

It is also worth noting that metaverse competition does not appear to exhibit the same sort of network effects and tipping that is sometimes associated with more traditional social networks.[12] Despite competing for nearly a decade, no single metaverse project appears to be running away with the market.[13] This lack of tipping might be because these projects are highly differentiated.[14] It may also be due to the ease of multi-homing among them.[15]

More broadly, it is far from clear that competition will lead to a single metaverse for all uses. Different types of metaverse services may benefit from different user interfaces, graphics, and physics engines. This cuts in favor of multiple metaverses coexisting, rather than all services coordinating within a single ecosystem. Competition therefore appears likely lead to the emergence of multiple differentiated metaverses, rather than a single winner.

Ultimately, competition in the metaverse industry is strong and there is little sense these markets are about to tip towards a single firm in the year future.

B. Competing for Consumer Trust

As alluded to in the previous subsection, the world’s largest and most successful metaverse entrants to date are traditional videogaming platforms that have various marketplaces and currencies attached.[16] In other words, decentralized virtual worlds built upon blockchain technology remain marginal.

This has important policy implications. The primary legal issues raised by metaverses are the same as those encountered on other digital marketplaces. This includes issues like minor fraud, scams, and children buying content without their parents’ authorization.[17] To the extent these harms are not adequately deterred by existing laws, metaverse platforms themselves have important incentives to police them. In turn, these incentives may be compounded by strong competition among platforms.

Metaverses are generally multi-sided platforms that bring together distinct groups of users, including consumers and content creators. In order to maximize the value of their ecosystems, platforms have an incentive to balance the interests of these distinct groups.[18] In practice, this will often mean offering consumers various forms of protection against fraud and scams and actively policing platforms’ marketplaces. As David Evans puts it:

But as with any community, there are numerous opportunities for people and businesses to create negative externalities, or engage in other bad behavior, that can reduce economic efficiency and, in the extreme, lead to the tragedy of the commons. Multi-sided platforms, acting selfishly to maximize their own profits, often develop governance mechanisms to reduce harmful behavior. They also develop rules to manage many of the same kinds of problems that beset communities subject to public laws and regulations. They enforce these rules through the exercise of property rights and, most importantly, through the “Bouncer’s Right” to exclude agents from some quantum of the platform, including prohibiting some agents from the platform entirely…[19]

While there is little economic research to suggest that competition directly increases hosts’ incentive to policy their platforms, it stands to reason that doing so effectively can help platforms to expand the appeal of their ecosystems. This is particularly important for metaverse services whose userbases remain just a fraction of the size they could ultimately reach. While 100 or 200 million users already comprises a vast ecosystem, it pales in comparison to the sometimes billions of users that “traditional” online platforms attract.

The bottom line is that the market for metaverses is growing. This likely compounds platforms’ incentives to weed out undesirable behavior, thereby complementing government efforts to achieve the same goal.

II. Opening Platforms or Opening Pandora’s Box?

In its call for contributions, the commission seems concerned that the metaverse competition may lead to closed ecosystems that may be less beneficial to consumers than more open ones. But if this is indeed the commission’s fear, it is largely unfounded.

There are many benefits to closed ecosystems. Choosing the optimal degree of openness entails tradeoffs. At the very least, this suggests that policymakers should be careful not to assume that opening platforms up will systematically provide net benefits to consumers.

A. Antitrust Enforcement and Regulatory Initiatives

To understand why open (and weakly propertized) platforms are not always better for consumers, it is worth looking at past competition enforcement in the online space. Recent interventions by competition authorities have generally attempted (or are attempting) to move platforms toward more openness and less propertization. For their part, these platforms are already tremendously open (as the “platform” terminology implies) and attempt to achieve a delicate balance between centralization and decentralization.

Figure I: Directional Movement of Antitrust Intervention

The Microsoft cases and the Apple investigation both sought or seek to bring more openness and less propertization to those respective platforms. Microsoft was made to share proprietary data with third parties (less propertization) and to open its platform to rival media players and web browsers (more openness).[20] The same applies to Apple. Plaintiffs in private antitrust litigation brought in the United States[21] and government enforcement actions in Europe[22] are seeking to limit the fees that Apple can extract from downstream rivals (less propertization), as well as to ensure that it cannot exclude rival mobile-payments solutions from its platform (more openness).

The various cases that were brought by EU and U.S. authorities against Qualcomm broadly sought to limit the extent to which it was monetizing its intellectual property.[23] The European Union’s Amazon investigation centers on the ways in which the company uses data from third-party sellers (and, ultimately, the distribution of revenue between those sellers and Amazon).[24] In both cases, authorities are ultimately trying to limit the extent to which firms can propertize their assets.

Finally, both of the EU’s Google cases sought to bring more openness to the company’s main platform. The Google Shopping decision sanctioned Google for purportedly placing its services more favorably than those of its rivals.[25] The separate Android decision sought to facilitate rival search engines’ and browsers’ access to the Android ecosystem. The same appears to be true of ongoing litigation brought by state attorneys general in the United States.[26]

Much of the same can be said of the numerous regulatory initiatives pertaining to digital markets. Indeed, draft regulations being contemplated around the globe mimic the features of the antitrust/competition interventions discussed above. For instance, it is widely accepted that Europe’s DMA effectively transposes and streamlines the enforcement of the theories harm described above.[27] Similarly, several scholars have argued that the proposed American Innovation and Choice Online Act (“AICOA”) in the United States largely mimics European competition policy.[28] The legislation would ultimately require firms to open up their platforms, most notably by forcing them to treat rival services as they would their own and to make their services more interoperable with those rivals.[29]

What is striking about these decisions and investigations is the extent to which authorities are pushing back against the very features that distinguish the platforms they are investigating. Closed (or relatively closed) platforms are forced to open up, and firms with highly propertized assets are made to share them (or, at the very least, monetize them less aggressively).

B. The Empty Quadrant

All of this would not be very interesting if it weren’t for a final piece of the puzzle: the model of open and shared platforms that authorities apparently favor has traditionally struggled to gain traction with consumers. Indeed, there seem to be vanishingly few successful consumer-oriented products and services in this space.

There have been numerous attempts to introduce truly open consumer-oriented operating systems in both the mobile and desktop segments. Most have ended in failure. Ubuntu and other flavors of the Linux operating system remain fringe products. There have been attempts to create open-source search engines, but they have not met with success.[30] The picture is similar in the online retail space. Amazon appears to have beaten eBay, despite the latter being more open and less propertized. Indeed, Amazon has historically charged higher fees than eBay and offers sellers much less freedom in the ways in which they may sell their goods.[31]

This theme is repeated in the standardization space. There have been innumerable attempts to impose open, royalty-free standards. At least in the mobile-internet industry, few (if any) of these have taken off. Instead, proprietary standards such as 5G and WiFi have been far more successful. That pattern is repeated in other highly standardized industries, like digital-video formats. Most recently, the proprietary Dolby Vision format seems to be winning the war against the open HDR10+ format.[32]

Figure II: Open and Shared Platforms

This is not to say that there haven’t been any successful examples of open, royalty-free standards. Internet protocols, blockchain, and Wikipedia all come to mind. Nor does it mean that we will not see more decentralized goods in the future. But by and large, firms and consumers have not yet taken to the idea of fully open and shared platforms. Or, at least, those platforms have not yet achieved widespread success in the marketplace (potentially due to supply-side considerations, such as the difficulty of managing open platforms or the potentially lower returns to innovation in weakly propertized ones).[33] And while some “open” projects have achieved tremendous scale, the consumer-facing side of these platforms is often dominated by intermediaries that opt for much more traditional business models (think of Coinbase in the blockchain space, or Android’s use of Linux).

C. Potential Explanations

The preceding section posited a recurring reality: the digital platforms that competition authorities wish to bring into existence are fundamentally different from those that emerge organically. But why have authorities’ ideal platforms, so far, failed to achieve truly meaningful success?

Three potential explanations come to mind. First, “closed” and “propertized” platforms might systematically—and perhaps anticompetitively—thwart their “open” and “shared” rivals. Second, shared platforms might fail to persist (or grow pervasive) because they are much harder to monetize, and there is thus less incentive to invest in them. This is essentially a supply-side explanation. Finally, consumers might opt for relatively closed systems precisely because they prefer these platforms to marginally more open ones—i.e., a demand-side explanation.

In evaluating the first conjecture, the key question is whether successful “closed” and “propertized” platforms overcame their rivals before or after they achieved some measure of market dominance. If success preceded dominance, then anticompetitive foreclosure alone cannot explain the proliferation of the “closed” and “propertized” model.[34]

Many of today’s dominant platforms, however, often overcame open/shared rivals, well before they achieved their current size. It is thus difficult to make the case that the early success of their business models was due to anticompetitive behavior. This is not to say these business models cannot raise antitrust issues, but rather that anticompetitive behavior is not a good explanation for their emergence.

Both the second and the third conjectures essentially ask whether “closed” and “propertized” might be better adapted to their environment than “open” and “shared” rivals.

In that respect, it is not unreasonable to surmise that highly propertized platforms would generally be easier to monetize than shared ones. For example, to monetize open-source platforms often requires relying on complementarities, which tend to be vulnerable to outside competition and free-riding.[35] There is thus a natural incentive for firms to invest and innovate in more propertized environments. In turn, competition enforcement that limits a platform’s ability to propertize their assets may harm innovation.

Similarly, authorities should reflect on whether consumers really want the more “competitive” ecosystems that they are trying to design. The European Commission, for example, has a long track record of seeking to open digital platforms, notably by requiring that platform owners do not preinstall their own web browsers (the Microsoft decisions are perhaps the most salient example). And yet, even after these interventions, new firms have kept using the very business model that the commission reprimanded, rather than the “pro-consumer” model it sought to impose on the industry. For example, Apple tied the Safari browser to its iPhones; Google went to some length to ensure that Chrome was preloaded on devices; and Samsung phones come with Samsung Internet as default.[36] Yet this has not ostensibly steered consumers away from those platforms.

Along similar lines, a sizable share of consumers opt for Apple’s iPhone, which is even more centrally curated than Microsoft Windows ever was (and the same is true of Apple’s MacOS). In other words, it is hard to claim that opening platforms is inherently good for consumers when those same consumers routinely opt for platforms with the very features that policymakers are trying to eliminate.

Finally, it is worth noting that the remedies imposed by competition authorities have been anything but successes. Windows XP N (the version of Windows that came without Windows Media Player) was an unmitigated flop, selling a paltry 1,787 copies.[37] Likewise, the internet-browser “ballot box” imposed by the commission was so irrelevant to consumers that it took months for authorities to notice that Microsoft had removed it, in violation of the commission’s decision.[38]

One potential inference is that consumers do not value competition interventions that make dominant ecosystems marginally more open and less propertized. There are also many reasons why consumers might prefer “closed” systems (at least, relative to the model favored by many policymakers), even when they must pay a premium for them.

Take the example of app stores. Maintaining some control over the apps that can access the store enables platforms to easily weed out bad actors. Similarly, controlling the hardware resources that each app can use may greatly improve device performance. Indeed, it may be that a measure of control facilitates the very innovations that consumers demand. Therefore, “authorities and courts should not underestimate the indispensable role control plays in achieving coordination and coherence in the context of systemic ef?ciencies. Without it, the attempted novelties and strategies might collapse under their own complexity.”[39]

Relatively centralized platforms can eliminate negative externalities that “bad” apps impose on rival apps and consumers.[40] This is especially true when consumers will tend to attribute dips in performance to the overall platform, rather than to a particular app.[41] At the same time, they can take advantage of positive externalities to improve the quality of the overall platform.

And it is surely the case that consumers prefer to make many of their decisions at the inter-platform level, rather than within each platform. In simple terms, users arguably make their most important decision when they choose between an Apple or Android smartphone (or a Mac and a PC, etc.). In doing so, they can select their preferred app suite with one simple decision. They might thus purchase an iPhone because they like the secure App Store, or an Android smartphone because they like the Chrome Browser and Google Search. Absent false information at the time of the initial platform decision, this decision will effectively incorporate expectations about subsequent constraints.[42]

Furthermore, forcing users to make too many “within-platform” choices may undermine a product’s attractiveness. Indeed, it is difficult to create a high-quality reputation if each user’s experience is fundamentally different.[43] In short, contrary to what antitrust authorities appear to believe, closed platforms might give most users exactly what they desire.

All of this suggests that consumers and firms often gravitate spontaneously toward both closed and highly propertized platforms, the opposite of what the commission and other competition authorities tend to favor. The reasons for this trend are still misunderstood, and mostly ignored. Too often it is simply assumed that consumers benefit from more openness, and that shared/open platforms are the natural order of things. Instead, what some regard as “market failures” may in fact be features that explain the rapid emergence of the digital economy.

When considering potential policy reforms targeting the metaverse, policymakers would be wrong to assume openness (notably, in the form of interoperability) and weak propertization are always objectively superior. Instead, these platform designs entail important tradeoffs. Closed metaverse ecosystems may lead to higher consumer safety and better performance, while interoperable systems may reduce the frictions consumers face when moving from one service to another. There is little reason to believe policymakers are in a better position to weigh these tradeoffs than consumers, who vote with their virtual feet.

III. Conclusion: Competition Intervention Would be Premature

A final important argument against intervening today is that the metaverse industry is nowhere near mature. Tomorrow’s competition-related challenges and market failures might not be the same as today’s. This makes it exceedingly difficult for policymakers to design appropriate remedies and increases the risk that intervention might harm innovation.

As of 2023, the entire metaverse industry (both hardware and software) is estimated to be worth somewhere in the vicinity of $80 billion, and projections suggest this could grow by a factor of 10 by 2030.[44] Growth projections of this sort are notoriously unreliable. But in this case, they do suggest there is some consensus that the industry is not fully fledged.

Along similar lines, it remains unclear what types of metaverse services will gain the most traction with consumers, what sorts of hardware consumers will use to access these services, and what technologies will underpin the most successful metaverse platforms. In fact, it is still an open question whether the metaverse industry will foster any services that achieve widespread consumer adoption in the foreseeable future.[45] In other words, it is not exactly clear what metaverse products and services the Commission should focus on in the first place.

Given these uncertainties, competition intervention in the metaverse appears premature. Intervening so early in the industry’s life cycle is like aiming at a moving target. Ensuing remedies might end up being irrelevant before they have any influence on the products that firms develop. More worryingly, acting now signals that the metaverse industry will be subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny for the foreseeable future. In turn, this may deter large platforms from investing in the European market. It also may funnel venture-capital investments away from the European continent.

Competition intervention in burgeoning industries is no free lunch. The best evidence concerning these potential costs comes from the GDPR. While privacy regulation is obviously not the same as competition law, the evidence concerning the GDPR suggests that heavy-handed intervention may, at least in some instances, slow down innovation and reduce competition.

The most-cited empirical evidence concerning the effects of the GDPR comes from a paper by Garrett Johnson and co-authors, who link the GDPR to widespread increases to market concentration, particularly in the short-term:

We show that websites’ vendor use falls after the European Union’s (EU’s) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but that market concentration also increases among technology vendors that provide support services to websites…. The week after the GDPR’s enforcement, website use of web technology vendors falls by 15% for EU residents. Websites are relatively more likely to retain top vendors, which increases the concentration of the vendor market by 17%. Increased concentration predominantly arises among vendors that use personal data, such as cookies, and from the increased relative shares of Facebook and Google-owned vendors, but not from website consent requests. Although the aggregate changes in vendor use and vendor concentration dissipate by the end of 2018, we find that the GDPR impact persists in the advertising vendor category most scrutinized by regulators.[46]

Along similar lines, an NBER working paper by Jian Jia and co-authors finds that enactment of the GDPR markedly reduced venture-capital investments in Europe:

Our findings indicate a negative differential effect on EU ventures after the rollout of GDPR relative to their US counterparts. These negative effects manifest in the overall number of financing rounds, the overall dollar amount raised across rounds, and in the dollar amount raised per individual round. Specifically, our findings suggest a $3.38 million decrease in the aggregate dollars raised by EU ventures per state per crude industry category per week, a 17.6% reduction in the number of weekly venture deals, and a 39.6% decrease in the amount raised in an average deal following the rollout of GDPR.[47]

In another paper, Samuel Goldberg and co-authors find that the GDPR led to a roughly 12% reduction in website pageviews and e-commerce revenue in Europe.[48] Finally, Rebecca Janssen and her co-authors show that the GDPR decreased the number of apps offered on Google’s Play Store between 2016 and 2019:

Using data on 4.1 million apps at the Google Play Store from 2016 to 2019, we document that GDPR induced the exit of about a third of available apps; and in the quarters following implementation, entry of new apps fell by half.[49]

Of course, the body of evidence concerning the GDPR’s effects is not entirely unambiguous. For example, Rajkumar Vekatesean and co-authors find that the GDPR had mixed effects on the returns of different types of firms.[50] Other papers also show similarly mixed effects.[51]

Ultimately, the empirical literature concerning the effects of the GDPR shows that regulation—in this case, privacy protection—is no free lunch. Of course, this does not mean that competition intervention targeting the metaverse would necessarily have these same effects. But in the absence of a clear market failure to solve, it is unclear why policymakers should run such a risk in the first place.

In the end, competition intervention in the metaverse is unlikely to be costless. The metaverse is still in its infancy, regulation could deter essential innovation, and the commission has thus far failed to identify any serious market failures that warrant public intervention. The result is that the commission’s call for contributions appears premature or, in other words, that the commission is putting the meta-cart before the meta-horse.

 

[1] Competition in Virtual Worlds and Generative AI – Calls for contributions, European Commission (Jan. 9, 2024) https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e727c66a-af77-4014-962a-7c9a36800e2f_en?filename=20240109_call-for-contributions_virtual-worlds_and_generative-AI.pdf (hereafter, “Call for Contributions”).

[2] Jonathan Vaian, Meta’s Reality Labs Records $3.99 Billion Quarterly Loss as Zuckerberg Pumps More Cash into Metaverse, CNBC (Apr. 26, 2023), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/metas-reality-labs-unit-records-3point99-billion-first-quarter-loss-.html.

[3] Alan Truly, Horizon Worlds Leak: Only 1 in 10 Users Return & Web Launch Is Coming, Mixed News (Mar. 3, 2023), https://mixed-news.com/en/horizon-worlds-leak-only-1-in-10-users-return-web-launch-coming; Kevin Hurler, Hey Fellow Kids: Meta Is Revamping Horizon Worlds to Attract More Teen Users, Gizmodo (Feb. 7, 2023), https://gizmodo.com/meta-metaverse-facebook-horizon-worlds-vr-1850082068; Emma Roth, Meta’s Horizon Worlds VR Platform Is Reportedly Struggling to Keep Users, The Verge (Oct. 15, 2022),
https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/15/23405811/meta-horizon-worlds-losing-users-report; Paul Tassi, Meta’s ‘Horizon Worlds’ Has Somehow Lost 100,000 Players in Eight Months, Forbes, (Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/10/17/metas-horizon-worlds-has-somehow-lost-100000-players-in-eight-months/?sh=57242b862a1b.

[4] Call for Contributions, supra note 1. (“6) Do you expect the technology incorporated into Virtual World platforms, enabling technologies of Virtual Worlds and services based on Virtual Worlds to be based mostly on open standards and/or protocols agreed through standard-setting organisations, industry associations or groups of companies, or rather the use of proprietary technology?”).

[5] Less Lawrence Lessig, The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 508 (1999).

[6] Virtual Worlds (Metaverses) – A Vision for Openness, Safety and Respect, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13757-Virtual-worlds-metaverses-a-vision-for-openness-safety-and-respect/feedback_en?p_id=31962299H.

[7] Catherine Thorbecke, What Metaverse? Meta Says Its Single Largest Investment Is Now in ‘Advancing AI’, CNN Business (Mar. 15, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/tech/meta-ai-investment-priority/index.html; Ben Marlow, Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse Is Shattering into a Million Pieces, The Telegraph (Apr. 23, 2023), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/21/mark-zuckerbergs-metaverse-shattering-million-pieces; Will Gendron, Meta Has Reportedly Stopped Pitching Advertisers on the Metaverse, BusinessInsider (Apr. 18, 2023), https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-zuckerberg-stopped-pitching-advertisers-metaverse-focus-reels-ai-report-2023-4.

[8] Mansoor Iqbal, Fortnite Usage and Revenue Statistics, Business of Apps (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.businessofapps.com/data/fortnite-statistics; Matija Ferjan, 76 Little-Known Metaverse Statistics & Facts (2023 Data), Headphones Addict (Feb. 13, 2023), https://headphonesaddict.com/metaverse-statistics.

[9] James Batchelor, Meta’s Flagship Metaverse Horizon Worlds Struggling to Attract and Retain Users, Games Industry (Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.gamesindustry.biz/metas-flagship-metaverse-horizon-worlds-struggling-to-attract-and-retain-users; Ferjan, id.

[10] Richard Lawler, Decentraland’s Billion-Dollar ‘Metaverse’ Reportedly Had 38 Active Users in One Day, The Verge (Oct. 13, 2022), https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/13/23402418/decentraland-metaverse-empty-38-users-dappradar-wallet-data; The Sandbox, DappRadar, https://dappradar.com/multichain/games/the-sandbox (last visited May 3, 2023); Decentraland, DappRadar, https://dappradar.com/multichain/social/decentraland (last visited May 3, 2023).

[11] David J. Teece, Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy, 15 Research Policy 285-305 (1986), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0048733386900272.

[12] Geoffrey Manne & Dirk Auer, Antitrust Dystopia and Antitrust Nostalgia: Alarmist Theories of Harm in Digital Markets and Their Origins, 28 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1279 (2021).

[13] Roblox, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox (last visited May 3, 2023); Minecraft, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft (last visited May 3, 2023); Fortnite, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite (last visited May 3, 2023); see Fiza Chowdhury, Minecraft vs Roblox vs Fortnite: Which Is Better?, Metagreats (Feb. 20, 2023), https://www.metagreats.com/minecraft-vs-roblox-vs-fortnite.

[14]  Marc Rysman, The Economics of Two-Sided Markets, 13 J. Econ. Perspectives 134 (2009) (“First, if standards can differentiate from each other, they may be able to successfully coexist (Chou and Shy, 1990; Church and Gandal, 1992). Arguably, Apple and Microsoft operating systems have both survived by specializing in different markets: Microsoft in business and Apple in graphics and education. Magazines are an obvious example of platforms that differentiate in many dimensions and hence coexist.”).

[15] Id. at 134 (“Second, tipping is less likely if agents can easily use multiple standards. Corts and Lederman (forthcoming) show that the fixed cost of producing a video game for one more standard have reduced over time relative to the overall fixed costs of producing a game, which has led to increased distribution of games across multiple game systems (for example, PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox) and a less-concentrated game system market.”).

[16] What Are Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft and Among Us? A Parent’s Guide to the Most Popular Online Games Kids Are Playing, FTC Business (Oct. 5, 2021), https://www.ftc.net/blog/what-are-fortnite-roblox-minecraft-and-among-us-a-parents-guide-to-the-most-popular-online-games-kids-are-playing; Jay Peters, Epic Is Merging Its Digital Asset Stores into One Huge Marketplace, The Verge (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/22/23645601/epic-games-fab-asset-marketplace-state-of-unreal-2023-gdc.

[17] Luke Winkie, Inside Roblox’s Criminal Underworld, Where Kids Are Scamming Kids, IGN (Jan. 2, 2023), https://www.ign.com/articles/inside-robloxs-criminal-underworld-where-kids-are-scamming-kids; Fake Minecraft Updates Pose Threat to Users, Tribune (Sept. 11, 2022), https://tribune.com.pk/story/2376087/fake-minecraft-updates-pose-threat-to-users; Ana Diaz, Roblox and the Wild West of Teenage Scammers, Polygon (Aug. 24, 2019) https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/24/20812218/roblox-teenage-developers-controversy-scammers-prison-roleplay; Rebecca Alter, Fortnite Tries Not to Scam Children and Face $520 Million in FTC Fines Challenge, Vulture (Dec. 19, 2022), https://www.vulture.com/2022/12/fortnite-epic-games-ftc-fines-privacy.html; Leonid Grustniy, Swindle Royale: Fortnite Scammers Get Busy, Kaspersky Daily (Dec. 3, 2020), https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/top-four-fortnite-scams/37896.

[18] See, generally, David Evans & Richard Schmalensee, Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms (Harvard Business Review Press, 2016).

[19] David S. Evans, Governing Bad Behaviour By Users of Multi-Sided Platforms, Berkley Technology Law Journal 27:2 (2012), 1201.

[20] See Case COMP/C-3/37.792, Microsoft, OJ L 32 (May 24, 2004). See also, Case COMP/39.530, Microsoft (Tying), OJ C 120 (Apr. 26, 2013).

[21] See Complaint, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 493 F. Supp. 3d 817 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (4:20-cv-05640-YGR).

[22] See European Commission Press Release IP/20/1073, Antitrust: Commission Opens Investigations into Apple’s App Store Rules (Jun. 16, 2020); European Commission Press Release IP/20/1075, Antitrust: Commission Opens Investigation into Apple Practices Regarding Apple Pay (Jun. 16, 2020).

[23] See European Commission Press Release IP/18/421, Antitrust: Commission Fines Qualcomm €997 Million for Abuse of Dominant Market Position (Jan. 24, 2018); Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020).

[24] See European Commission Press Release IP/19/4291, Antitrust: Commission Opens Investigation into Possible Anti-Competitive Conduct of Amazon (Jul. 17, 2019).

[25] See Case AT.39740, Google Search (Shopping), 2017 E.R.C. I-379. See also, Case AT.40099 (Google Android), 2018 E.R.C.

[26] See Complaint, United States v. Google, LLC, (2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws; see also, Complaint, Colorado et al. v. Google, LLC, (2020), available at https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2020/12/Colorado-et-al.-v.-Google-PUBLIC-REDACTED-Complaint.pdf.

[27] See, e.g., Giorgio Monti, The Digital Markets Act: Institutional Design and Suggestions for Improvement, Tillburg L. & Econ. Ctr., Discussion Paper No. 2021-04 (2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3797730 (“In sum, the DMA is more than an enhanced and simplified application of Article 102 TFEU: while the obligations may be criticised as being based on existing competition concerns, they are forward-looking in trying to create a regulatory environment where gatekeeper power is contained and perhaps even reduced.”) (Emphasis added).

[28] See, e.g., Aurelien Portuese, “Please, Help Yourself”: Toward a Taxonomy of Self-Preferencing, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (Oct. 25, 2021), available at https://itif.org/sites/default/files/2021-self-preferencing-taxonomy.pdf. (“The latest example of such weaponization of self-preferencing by antitrust populists is provided by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). They introduced legislation in October 2021 aimed at prohibiting the practice.2 However, the legislation would ban self-preferencing only for a handful of designated companies—the so-called “covered platforms,” not the thousands of brick-and-mortar sellers that daily self-preference for the benefit of consumers. Mimicking the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act prohibiting self-preferencing, Senate and the House bills would degrade consumers’ experience and undermine competition, since self-preferencing often benefits consumers and constitutes an integral part, rather than an abnormality, of the process of competition.”).

[29] Efforts to saddle platforms with “non-discrimination” constraints are tantamount to mandating openness. See Geoffrey A. Manne, Against the Vertical Discrimination Presumption, Foreword, Concurrences No. 2-2020 (2020) at 2 (“The notion that platforms should be forced to allow complementors to compete on their own terms, free of constraints or competition from platforms is a species of the idea that platforms are most socially valuable when they are most ‘open.’ But mandating openness is not without costs, most importantly in terms of the effective operation of the platform and its own incentives for innovation.”).

[30] See, e.g., Klint Finley, Your Own Private Google: The Quest for an Open Source Search Engine, Wired (Jul. 12, 2021), https://www.wired.com/2012/12/solar-elasticsearch-google.

[31] See Brian Connolly, Selling on Amazon vs. eBay in 2021: Which Is Better?, JungleScout (Jan. 12, 2021), https://www.junglescout.com/blog/amazon-vs-ebay; Crucial Differences Between Amazon and eBay, SaleHOO, https://www.salehoo.com/educate/selling-on-amazon/crucial-differences-between-amazon-and-ebay (last visited Feb. 8, 2021).

[32] See, e.g., Dolby Vision Is Winning the War Against HDR10 +, It Requires a Single Standard, Tech Smart, https://voonze.com/dolby-vision-is-winning-the-war-against-hdr10-it-requires-a-single-standard (last visited June 6, 2022).

[33] On the importance of managers, see, e.g., Nicolai J Foss & Peter G Klein, Why Managers Still Matter, 56 MIT Sloan Mgmt. Rev., 73 (2014) (“In today’s knowledge-based economy, managerial authority is supposedly in decline. But there is still a strong need for someone to define and implement the organizational rules of the game.”).

[34] It is generally agreed upon that anticompetitive foreclosure is possible only when a firm enjoys some degree of market power. Frank H. Easterbrook, Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 20 (1984) (“Firms that lack power cannot injure competition no matter how hard they try. They may injure a few consumers, or a few rivals, or themselves (see (2) below) by selecting ‘anticompetitive’ tactics. When the firms lack market power, though, they cannot persist in deleterious practices. Rival firms will offer the consumers better deals. Rivals’ better offers will stamp out bad practices faster than the judicial process can. For these and other reasons many lower courts have held that proof of market power is an indispensable first step in any case under the Rule of Reason. The Supreme Court has established a market power hurdle in tying cases, despite the nominally per se character of the tying offense, on the same ground offered here: if the defendant lacks market power, other firms can offer the customer a better deal, and there is no need for judicial intervention.”).

[35] See, e.g., Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, Some Simple Economics of Open Source, 50 J. Indus. Econ. 197 (2002).

[36] See Matthew Miller, Thanks, Samsung: Android’s Best Mobile Browser Now Available to All, ZDNet (Aug. 11, 2017), https://www.zdnet.com/article/thanks-samsung-androids-best-mobile-browser-now-available-to-all.

[37] FACT SHEET: Windows XP N Sales, RegMedia (Jun. 12, 2009), available at https://regmedia.co.uk/2009/06/12/microsoft_windows_xp_n_fact_sheet.pdf.

[38] See Case COMP/39.530, Microsoft (Tying), OJ C 120 (Apr. 26, 2013).

[39] Konstantinos Stylianou, Systemic Efficiencies in Competition Law: Evidence from the ICT Industry, 12 J. Competition L. & Econ. 557 (2016).

[40] See, e.g., Steven Sinofsky, The App Store Debate: A Story of Ecosystems, Medium (Jun. 21, 2020), https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/the-app-store-debate-a-story-of-ecosystems-938424eeef74.

[41] Id.

[42] See, e.g., Benjamin Klein, Market Power in Aftermarkets, 17 Managerial & Decision Econ. 143 (1996).

[43] See, e.g., Simon Hill, What Is Android Fragmentation, and Can Google Ever Fix It?, DigitalTrends (Oct. 31, 2018), https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-android-fragmentation-and-can-google-ever-fix-it.

[44] Metaverse Market Revenue Worldwide from 2022 to 2030, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1295784/metaverse-market-size (last visited May 3, 2023); Metaverse Market by Component (Hardware, Software (Extended Reality Software, Gaming Engine, 3D Mapping, Modeling & Reconstruction, Metaverse Platform, Financial Platform), and Professional Services), Vertical and Region – Global Forecast to 2027, Markets and Markets (Apr. 27, 2023), https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/metaverse-market-166893905.html; see also, Press Release, Metaverse Market Size Worth $ 824.53 Billion, Globally, by 2030 at 39.1% CAGR, Verified Market Research (Jul. 13, 2022), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/metaverse-market-size-worth–824-53-billion-globally-by-2030-at-39-1-cagr-verified-market-research-301585725.html.

[45] See, e.g., Megan Farokhmanesh, Will the Metaverse Live Up to the Hype? Game Developers Aren’t Impressed, Wired (Jan. 19, 2023), https://www.wired.com/story/metaverse-video-games-fortnite-zuckerberg; see also Mitch Wagner, The Metaverse Hype Bubble Has Popped. What Now?, Fierce Electronics (Feb. 24, 2023), https://www.fierceelectronics.com/embedded/metaverse-hype-bubble-has-popped-what-now.

[46] Garret A. Johnson, et al., Privacy and Market Concentration: Intended and Unintended Consequences of the GDPR, Forthcoming Management Science 1 (2023).

[47] Jian Jia, et al., The Short-Run Effects of GDPR on Technology Venture Investment, NBER Working Paper 25248, 4 (2018), available at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25248/w25248.pdf.

[48] Samuel G. Goldberg, Garrett A. Johnson, & Scott K. Shriver, Regulating Privacy Online: An Economic Evaluation of GDPR (2021), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1588356/johnsongoldbergshriver.pdf.

[49] Rebecca Janßen, Reinhold Kesler, Michael Kummer, & Joel Waldfogel, GDPR and the Lost Generation of Innovative Apps, Nber Working Paper 30028, 2 (2022), available at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30028/w30028.pdf.

[50] Rajkumar Venkatesan, S. Arunachalam & Kiran Pedada, Short Run Effects of Generalized Data Protection Act on Returns from AI Acquisitions, University of Virginia Working Paper 6 (2022), available at: https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f161612.pdf. (“On average, GDPR exposure reduces the ROA of firms. We also find that GDPR exposure increases the ROA of firms that make AI acquisitions for improving customer experience, and cybersecurity. Returns on AI investments in innovation and operational efficiencies are unaffected by GDPR.”)

[51] For a detailed discussion of the empirical literature concerning the GDPR, see Garrett Johnson, Economic Research on Privacy Regulation: Lessons From the GDPR And Beyond, NBER Working Paper 30705 (2022), available at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30705/w30705.pdf.