Platform policies in the European Union: Competition and public interest in media markets | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Digital Media & Policy
  4. Volume 11, Issue 3
  5. Article
Regulating digital platform power
  • ISSN: 2516-3523
  • E-ISSN: 2516-3531

Abstract

This article examines which platform policies the European Commission has developed over the last couple of years and whether its policies are taking into account the differences in platform power. We first identify the main structures of platform power. Secondly, we confront the European Commission’s policies affecting media and communication platforms with those structures. Thirdly, we discuss whether what the European Commission is doing will make sense in the longer run. We end with some conclusions and recommendations for further research and policy. Our main finding is that the approach of the European Commission cannot live up to expectations, simply because it is too fragmented in terms of tackling the different dimensions of platform power together. Moreover, in the focus on detrimental effects of (some) platforms on competition, public interest issues often remain neglected.

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
2020-11-01
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amico, A. K.. ( 2020;), ‘ Why ownership concentration matters. ’, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 24 February, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/02/24/why-ownership-concentration-matters. Accessed 20 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand, B.. ( 2016;), ‘ AT&T, Time Warner, and what makes vertical mergers succeed. ’, Harvard Business Review, 28 October, https://hbr.org/2016/10/att-time-warner-and-what-makes-vertical-mergers-succeed. Accessed 6 March 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ballon, P., and Van Heesvelde, E.. ( 2011;), ‘ ICT platforms and regulatory concerns in Europe. ’, Telecommunications Policy, 35:8, pp. 702–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Gill, O.. ( 2018;), ‘ Algorithmic price discrimination: When demand is a function of both preferences and (mis)perceptions. ’, University of Chicago Law Review, 86, 14 June, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184533. Accessed 1 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Belleflamme, P., and Peitz, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Platforms and network effects. ’, in L. C. Corchón, and M. A. Marini. (eds), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Cheltenham:: Edward Elgar Publishing;, pp. 286–318.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cunningham, C.,, Ma, S., and Ederer, F.. ( 2018;), ‘ Killer acquisitions. ’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018:1, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.301. Accessed 1 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cusumano, M. A.,, Gawer, A., and Yoffie, D. B.. ( 2019), The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power, New York:: Harper Collins;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. EURACTIV ( 2020;), ‘ The commission’s digital strategy: More competition, less emissions. ’, 19 February, https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/the-commissions-digital-strategy-more-competition-less-emissions. Accessed 22 March 2020.
  9. European Commission ( 2014;), ‘ M.7000: Liberty Global/Ziggo – Merger Procedure Regulation (EC) 139/2004. ’, 10 October, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m7000_20141010_20600_4221982_EN.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  10. European Commission ( 2016a;), ‘ M.8124: Microsoft/LinkedIn – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 Merger Procedure. ’, 6 December, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m8124_1349_5.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  11. European Commission ( 2016b;), ‘ Online platforms and the digital single market: Opportunities and challenges for Europe. ’, 25 May, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288&from=EN. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  12. European Commission ( 2016c;), ‘ State aid: Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple worth up to €13 billion. ’, 30 August, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2923. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  13. European Commission ( 2016d;), ‘ Connectivity for a competitive digital single market: Towards a European gigabit society. ’, 14 September, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0587. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  14. European Commission ( 2017a;), ‘ M.8465: Vivendi/Telecom Italia – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 Merger Procedure. ’, 30 May, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m8465_568_3.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  15. European Commission ( 2017b;), ‘ State aid: Commission finds Luxembourg gave illegal tax benefits to Amazon worth around €250 million. ’, 4 October, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_3701. Accessed 5 February 2020.
  16. European Commission ( 2018a;), ‘ Commission recommendation on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online. ’, 1 March, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-recommendation-measures-effectively-tackle-illegal-content-online. Accessed 22 March 2020.
  17. European Commission ( 2018b;), ‘ Tackling online disinformation: Commission proposes an EU-wide code of practice. ’, 26 April, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_3370. Accessed 22 March 2020.
  18. European Commission ( 2018c;), ‘ Fair taxation of the digital economy. ’, 21 March, https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/fair-taxation-digital-economy_en. Accessed 21 March 2020.
  19. European Commission ( 2019a;), ‘M.8785: The Walt Disney Company/Twenty-First Century Fox – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 Merger Procedure. , 28 January, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m8785_2220_3.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2020.
  20. European Commission ( 2019b;), ‘ New deal for consumers: European Commission welcomes provisional agreement on strengthening EU consumer protection rules. ’, European Commission, 2 April, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_1755. Accessed 22 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. European Parliament ( 2019;), ‘ Official complaint by Spotify against Apple for discrimination and Apple Music’s unfair advantage over Spotify: The power of digital platforms. ’, 26 September, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002996_EN.html. Accessed 20 March 2020.
  22. European Parliament and Council of the European Union ( 2018;), ‘ Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council: European Electronic Communications Code. ’, 17 December, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L1972&from=EN. Accessed 21 March 2020.
  23. European Union ( 2013;), ‘ Competition: Merger control procedures. ’, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/procedures_en.html. Accessed 4 June 2019.
  24. Evens, T., and Donders, K.. ( 2018), Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television Markets, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fagerjord, A., and Küng, L.. ( 2019;), ‘ Mapping the core actors and flows in streaming video services: What Netflix can tell us about these new media networks. ’, Journal of Media Business Studies, 16:3, pp. 166–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kevin, D., and Schneeberger, A.. ( 2015;), ‘ Access to TV platforms: Must-carry rules, and access to free-DTT. ’, European Audiovisual Observatory for the European Commission, December, https://rm.coe.int/16807835e4. Accessed 27 February 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Khan, L.. ( 2017;), ‘ Amazon’s antitrust paradox. ’, The Yale Law Journal, 126:710, pp. 710–805.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Khan, L.. ( 2018;), ‘ Amazon: An infrastructure service and its challenge to current antitrust law. ’, in M. Moore, and D. Tambini. (eds), Digital Dominance, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 98–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Levin, J.. ( 2011;), ‘ The economics of internet markets (No. w16852). ’, Elsevier, 7 March, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1776787. Accessed 1 February 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Moore, M., and Tambini, D.. (eds) ( 2018), Digital Dominance, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. OECD ( 2013;), ‘ Competition issues in television and broadcasting 2013. ’, 28 October, http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/TV-and-broadcasting2013.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2020.
  32. OECD ( 2019;), ‘ Vertical mergers in the technology, media and telecom sector. ’, 7 June, https://www.oecd.org/competition/vertical-mergers-in-the-technology-media-and-telecom-sector.htm. Accessed 18 December 2020.
  33. Pasquale, F.. ( 2015), The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Salop, S. C., and Culley, D. P.. ( 2014;), ‘ Potential competitive effects of vertical mergers: A how-to guide for practitioners. ’, SSRN Electronic Journal, 12 November, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2522179. Accessed 6 January 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sawhney, M.,, Verona, G., and Prandelli, E.. ( 2005;), ‘ Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. ’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19:4, pp. 4–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Srnicek, N.. ( 2017), Platform Capitalism, Cambridge, MA:: Polity Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Stoller, M.. ( 2019), Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, New York:: Simon & Schuster;.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Vande Walle, S.. ( 2019;), ‘ Sole control: The Belgian Competition Authority clears a vertical merger in the audiovisual sector, subject to conditions (Telenet Group BVBA/De Vijver Media NV). ’, Concurrences, 3, pp. 120–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Zillner, S.,, Becker, T.,, Munné, R.,, Hussain, K.,, Rusitschka, S.,, Lippell, H.,, Curry, E., and Ojo, A.. ( 2016;), ‘ Big data-driven innovation in industrial sectors. ’, in J. M. Cavanillas,, E. Curry, and W. Wahlster. (eds), New Horizons for a Data-Driven Economy, Cham:: Springer International Publishing;, pp. 169–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Evens, Tom,, Donders, Karen, and Afilipoaie, Adelaida. ( 2020;), ‘ Platform policies in the European Union: Competition and public interest in media markets. ’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 11:3, pp. 283–300, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
Loading
Platform policies in the European Union: Competition and public interest in media markets
Journal of Digital Media & Policy 11, 283 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00026_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): Audiovisual Media Service Directive; competition policy; consumer protection; digital platforms; structural power; tax

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error