IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ordojb/v69y2018i1p259-308n13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wettbewerbsrecht und Ökonomie im digitalen 21. Jahrhundert: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Intel-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und zum Facebook-Verfahren des Bundeskartellamts

Author

Listed:
  • Mohr Jochen

    (Professor für Bürgerliches Recht, Wettbewerbsrecht, Energierecht, Regulierungsrecht und Arbeitsrecht, Juristische Fakultät, UniversitätLeipzig, Germany)

Abstract

The relationship between competition law and economy provides reason for a continuous reflection. As commonly known, The European Commission aims to orientate competition law towards assessments on an economic case-by-case basis by implementing the more economic approach. The central expression of this approach is the as efficient competitor test, according to which the competition rules – in simple words – can only be applied to a conduct, which is evidently harmful for consumers. The Intel-decision of the European Court of Justice has shown that achieving economically correct individual case results by applying competition law may already come to its limits in an analogous economy. These limits are more apparent in the digital economy, since the relevant business-models are not yet fully assessed in terms of competition law’s perspective. Based on a juridical interpretation of competition law, business conducts are inadmissible as soon as they impair the eligible freedom positions and the resulting competitive processes. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove an economic damage to the consumers in a specific case. The practical significance of the competition rules’ orientation towards legal criteria becomes evident in the German Federal Cartel Office’s Facebook-case, where the question arises, if a breach of fundamental legal principles, especially the general right of privacy, constitutes an abuse of market power.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohr Jochen, 2018. "Wettbewerbsrecht und Ökonomie im digitalen 21. Jahrhundert: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Intel-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und zum Facebook-Verfahren des Bundeskartellamts," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 69(1), pages 259-308, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ordojb:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:259-308:n:13
    DOI: 10.1515/ordo-2019-0014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ordo-2019-0014
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ordo-2019-0014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benndorf, Volker & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2014. "The willingness to sell personal data," DICE Discussion Papers 143, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    2. David Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    3. Budzinski Oliver, 2016. "Wettbewerbsordnung online: Aktuelle Herausforderungen durch Marktplätze im Internet," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 67(1), pages 385-410, May.
    4. Hamelmann Lisa & Haucap Justus, 2016. "Wettbewerb und Kartellrecht auf Online-Plattformmärkten," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 67(1), pages 269-298, May.
    5. Reder, Melvin W, 1982. "Chicago Economics: Permanence and Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-38, March.
    6. Mestmäcker Ernst-Joachim, 2012. "Wettbewerbsfreiheit und Wohlfahrt. Ein ideengeschichtlicher Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Ökonomie und Recht / Freedom of Competition and Welfare," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 429-448, January.
    7. Baumol, William J, 1996. "Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 49-72, April.
    8. Thomas W. Ross, 2004. "Viewpoint: Canadian competition policy: progress and prospects," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 243-268, May.
    9. Richard A. Posner, 1972. "The Appropriate Scope of Regulation in the Cable Television Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 3(1), pages 98-129, Spring.
    10. Coyle Diane, 2012. "Verweisen wirtschaftliche Krisen auf Krisen in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 61(1), pages 103-117, April.
    11. Hellwig, Martin, 2007. "Wirtschaftspolitik als Rechtsanwendung," Walter Adolf Jöhr Lecture 2007, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Institute of Economics (FGN-HSG).
    12. Herdzina, Klaus, 1988. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer wirtschaftstheoretischen Fundierung der Wettbewerbspolitik," Beiträge zur Ordnungstheorie und Ordnungspolitik, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen;Walter Eucken Institut, Freiburg, Germany, edition 1, number urn:isbn:9783163453111, September.
    13. Haucap, Justus, 2018. "Big Data aus wettbewerbs- und ordnungspolitischer Perspektive," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 96, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Budzinski, Oliver, 2017. "Wettbewerbsregeln für das Digitale Zeitalter - Die Ökonomik personalisierter Daten, Verbraucherschutz und die 9. GWB-Novelle," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 108, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    2. Haucap, Justus & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2017. "Ordnungspolitik in der digitalen Welt," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 90, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    3. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    4. Budzinski, Oliver, 2016. "Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Wettbewerbspolitik durch Marktplätze im Internet," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 103, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    5. Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Ordnungspolitik und Kartellrecht im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 77, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    6. Budzinski Oliver & Köhler Karoline Henrike, 2015. "Is Amazon The Next Google?," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 263-288, January.
    7. Haucap, Justus, 2018. "Big Data aus wettbewerbs- und ordnungspolitischer Perspektive," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 96, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    8. Budzinski, Oliver & Lindstädt-Dreusicke, Nadine, 2018. "The new media economics of video-on-demand markets: Lessons for competition policy," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 116, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    9. Budzinski, Oliver & Lindstädt-Dreusicke, Nadine, 2019. "The new media economics of video-on-demand markets: Lessons for competition policy (updated version)," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 125, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    10. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Christian Johnson & George G Kaufman, 2007. "Un banco, con cualquier otro nombre…," Boletín, CEMLA, vol. 0(4), pages 185-199, Octubre-d.
    12. Amelio, Andrea & Giardino-Karlinger, Liliane & Valletti, Tommaso, 2020. "Exclusionary pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Lindsey, Robin & West, Douglas S., 2003. "Predatory pricing in differentiated products retail markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 551-592, April.
    14. Dittmann, Heidi & Kuchinke, Björn A., 2016. "Sharing Economy and Regulation," 27th European Regional ITS Conference, Cambridge (UK) 2016 148665, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. Luc Baumstark & Claude Ménard & William Roy & Anne Yvrande-Billon, 2005. "Modes de gestion et efficience des opérateurs dans le secteur des transports urbains de personnes," Post-Print halshs-00103116, HAL.
    16. Bauer, Johannes M., 2014. "Platforms, systems competition, and innovation: Reassessing the foundations of communications policy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 662-673.
    17. Neri Salvadori & Rodolfo Signorino, 2016. "Competition," Chapters, in: Gilbert Faccarello & Heinz D. Kurz (ed.), Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume III, chapter 6, pages 70-81, Edward Elgar Publishing.
      • Salvadori, Neri & Signorino, Rodolfo, 2011. "Competition," MPRA Paper 38387, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Altman, Morris, 2001. "When green isn't mean: economic theory and the heuristics of the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness and opportunity cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-44, January.
    19. Chiara D'Alpaos & Cesare Dosi & Michele Moretto, 2005. "Concession lenght and investment timing flexibility," Working Papers ubs0502, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
    20. Zhiyong Liu & Yue Qiao, 2012. "Abuse of Market Dominance Under China’s 2007 Anti-monopoly Law: A Preliminary Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 41(1), pages 77-107, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ordojb:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:259-308:n:13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.