Data Processing as an Abuse of Market Power in Multi-Sided Markets. The More Competition-Oriented Approach in the German Federal Supreme Court’s Interim Decision KVR 69/19 – Facebook

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt

Abstract The relationship between competition law and data protection law has been a highly controversial issue following the German Competition Authority’s (Bundeskartellamt, hereinafter ‘Competition Authority’) decision with regard to Facebook’s data processing policy. The Competition Authority’s theory of harm was centered around an exploitative abuse of market power through the imposition of a data processing policy which is in conflict with the data protection rules. In the interim court proceedings, the OLG Düsseldorf criticized the Competition Authority’s decision. The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter ‘Federal Supreme Court’) upheld the Competition Authority’s decision. However, the Federal Supreme Court did not derive the exploitative abuse primarily from a mere violation of data protection law. Instead, the Court referred to the users’ lack of freedom of choice. The Court developed a modified theory of harm by identifying elements of an exploitative abuse but also of an exclusionary abuse. The Court’s line of argument is more competition-oriented and accounts for the particular economic features of multi-sided markets. In this line of reasoning, an actual violation of the data protection rules is not a necessary prerequisite for finding a violation of competition law.

Author(s):  
Miriam Caroline Buiten

Abstract Online platforms increasingly offer consumers services ‘for free’, in exchange for collecting consumers’ personal data. This business model is highly successful, leading some online platforms to gain substantial market power. This market power can cause consumer harm—not through higher prices, but in the form of privacy harm. This article considers what role competition law and data protection law can play in mitigating this harm to privacy. The article considers how we can conceptualize exploitative abuse of dominance cases in zero-price markets. The article calls into question if data protection laws should play a role in antitrust abuse assessments, against the background of the Bundeskartellamt antitrust investigation into Facebook’s data collection practices. The article argues that, even in digital markets that unequivocally link market power with data privacy concerns, competition law and data protection law have complementary but distinct roles to play.


2021 ◽  

The relationship between law and technology is becoming increasingly complex due to the rapid advance of digitization and the development of new and "smart" technologies. Traditional anthropocentric concepts of law seem to be in question. Moreover, the ways in which law is made and applied are changing. In the face of new and adaptive technologies, must law and its enforcement themselves become more adaptive, and how can this be done? In their contributions to the 6th GRUR Young Science conference, young scientists will address these questions from the perspective of intellectual property, media, competition, information and data protection law and will present their theses for discussion at the online conference organized at Bucerius Law School on June 4 and 5, 2021. With contributions by Dr. Jonas Botta, Dr. Michael Denga, Prof. Dr. Philipp Hacker, Dr. Elsa Kirchner, David Korb, David Linke, Janine Marinello, Ferdinand Müller, Stefan Papastefanou, Dr. Joachim Pierer, Darius Rostam, Martin Schüßler, Florian Skupin, Sebastian Theß and Nora Wienfort.


Author(s):  
G. T. Laurie ◽  
S. H. E. Harmon ◽  
E. S. Dove

This chapter discusses ethical and legal aspects of medical confidentiality. It covers the relationship between confidentiality and data protection law; the possible exceptions to the confidentiality rule; confidentiality and the legal process; confidentiality for the purposes of medical research; patient access to medical records; remedies for breach of confidentiality; and confidentiality and death.


2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Nikolaus Marsch ◽  
Timo Rademacher

German data protection laws all provide for provisions that allow public authorities to process personal data whenever this is ‘necessary’ for the respective authority to fulfil its tasks or, in the case of sensitive data in the meaning of art. 9 GDPR, if this is ‘absolutely necessary’. Therewith, in theory, data protection law provides for a high degree of administrative flexibility, e. g. to cope with unforeseen situations like the Coronavirus pandemic. However, these provisions, referred to in German doctrine as ‘Generalklauseln’ (general clauses or ‘catch-all’-provisions in English), are hardly used, as legal orthodoxy assumes that they are too vague to form a sufficiently clear legal basis for public purpose processing under the strict terms of the German fundamental right to informational self-determination (art. 2‍(1), 1‍(1) German Basic Law). As this orthodoxy appears to be supported by case law of the German Constitutional Court, legislators have dutifully reacted by creating a plethora of sector specific laws and provisions to enable data processing by public authorities. As a consequence, German administrative data protection law has become highly detailed and confusing, even for legal experts, therewith betraying the very purpose of legal clarity and foreseeability that scholars intended to foster by requiring ever more detailed legal bases. In our paper, we examine the reasons that underlie the German ‘ban’ on using the ‘Generalklauseln’. We conclude that the reasons do not justify the ban in general, but only in specific areas and/or processing situations such as security and criminal law. Finally, we list several arguments that do speak in favour of a more ‘daring’ approach when it comes to using the ‘Generalklauseln’ for public purpose data processing.


Cyber Crime ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. 300-309
Author(s):  
Anna Tsiftsoglou

The Greek Data Protection Authority (DPA) was asked in July 2009 to review a proposed legislation that was exempting personal data processing via camera installations in public spaces from the scope of the Greek Data Protection Law 2472/1997. Such an exemption was justified, among other reasons, for the protection of public safety and crime prevention. This paper examines the legitimacy of this security measure from two angles: European and Greek Law. Furthermore, our analysis focuses on questions of privacy, the concept of public safety and its application, as well as the DPA’s role in safeguarding citizens’ privacy even in city streets.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf H. Weber

AbstractInformation is increasingly becoming a valuable currency in online businesses and, thereby, a competition factor, however, equally an important element of privacy. This article addresses the only weakly researched relationship between competition law and data protection law outlining potential factors that can contribute to a suitable balance of the two legal sectors.


Author(s):  
Kazuaki Nishioka

Abstract Most states have a national anti-trust or competition law to regulate anti-competitive activities. There is no doubt that, in purely domestic cases, where an anti-competitive activity and its anti-competitive effects have occurred within a state, that state’s national competition authority can regulate the activity by applying its competition law. For cross-border cases such as where anti-competitive activities are carried out abroad but have anti-competitive effects on the domestic or internal market of that state or region, it has been gradually accepted that a state can apply its competition law to the activities on the basis of the effects within its territory. However, it should be noted that states have approached such cases differently. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Japan first decided the international scope of the Japanese Anti-Monopoly Act (JAMA) in cross-border cartel cases and clarified that the JAMA could apply to anti-competitive activities conducted outside of Japan if the activities in question disturbed the free competition economic order of Japan. The court did not mention the effects doctrine or the territorial principle. This article examines on what grounds and how far the JAMA can and should apply to cross-border cartel cases by analysing the Supreme Court judgement.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Blume

AbstractThis article discusses the data protection issues made topical by cloud computing. It takes its starting point in a decision made by the Danish Data Protection Agency which is probably the first decision concerning this issue in an EU member state. The article focuses on the relationship between controller and processor, data security, data transfer and data subject rights. It concludes that cloud computing is a challenge but that data protection law should be able to meet that challenge.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz

While the economic rationale for intellectual property (“IP”) rights rests on theconcepts of “monopoly” or “market power,” the Supreme Court, in Illinois ToolWorks v. Independent Ink , has recently joined a “virtual consensus” amongantitrust commentators believing that no presumption of market power should existin antitrust cases involving IP. This Article critically analyzes this consensus, andclarifies the relationship between IP and market power, shows why IP rights oftendo confer market power in the antitrust sense, but also explains whyacknowledging this should not necessarily lead to oversized application ofantitrust law to IP.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document