By Martin Sandbu, Financial Times
Margrethe Vestager is using her renewed and expanded mandate for all it is worth. The EU competition commissioner, who will be promoted to vice-president of the incoming commission in charge of digital policy, is contemplating a new move against digital market abuse. In future, large internet companies accused of anti-competitive behaviour may find the burden of proof is on them to show their conduct benefits consumers, rather than on authorities to prove harm.
What does the commission gain from such a policy change? One obvious answer is speed. Ms Vestager “is doing it to show we can have smart regulation, meaning that you can be fast enough to act upon market cases that require immediate action”, says Francesca Bria, a digital policy adviser to the UN and the commission. “This makes a lot of sense. If you intervene too late you do not have the tools to enforce your regulation and the problem may have moved somewhere else.”
The policy would dovetail with Ms Vestager’s revival of so-called interim measures to stop alleged market abuse during an investigation. That was a “very welcome” decision, says Thomas Philippon, a New York University finance professor and author of a book arguing Europe’s antitrust policy has overtaken America’s. “There is no presumption that the company is right or wrong, but when there is uncertainty and time is of the essence then it’s appropriate for regulators to have this instrument . . . the burden of proof argument is very similar in spirit.”
Requiring tech companies to show how their behaviour benefits users may have consequences beyond mere speed. It could address what Ms Bria calls a “very strong paradox” — that other industries, such as “Big Pharma or telecoms or big monopolies”, share data with authorities “for competition inquiries and analysis” whereas “Big Tech [companies] are sitting on big amounts of data” but resist sharing it.
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand