‘What are they thinking of?’

This article explains the thinking underlying recent activism in digital markets by competition regulators – with reference to cases undertaken by the CMA, the European Commission and the US authorities, and to the new UK and EU regulatory regimes for competition in digital markets. It addresses some common misconceptions about competition authorities’ thinking on digital markets, and identifies strategies most likely to be effective for tech companies in dealing with competition authorities. It argues that: (i) the consumer and competition benefits brought by the tech industry are real and substantial; (ii) contrary to common belief, these benefits are recognized by competition authorities; (iii) recent competition regulatory activism should be understood in the context of a belief that it is necessary to preserve those benefits, by allowing new generations of tech disruptors to emerge; (iv) when tech companies face competition investigations or interventions, they should resist the temptation to kneejerk dismissal of all possible concerns, which is unlikely to be effective in advancing their business interests, because it misunderstands the authorities’ thinking; and (v) smarter strategies involve engaging with the specific facts of a particular case (economic, legal and technical) to challenge whether proposed interventions or remedies are, in reality, both effective and proportionate.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Competition Law Journal
Published
2024-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2024.01.02
Primary Topic
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘What are they thinking of?’

Michael Grenfell
Competition Law Journal
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
article

‘What are they thinking of?’

Michael Grenfell
article en

Abstract

This article explains the thinking underlying recent activism in digital markets by competition regulators – with reference to cases undertaken by the CMA, the European Commission and the US authorities, and to the new UK and EU regulatory regimes for competition in digital markets. It addresses some common misconceptions about competition authorities’ thinking on digital markets, and identifies strategies most likely to be effective for tech companies in dealing with competition authorities. It argues that: (i) the consumer and competition benefits brought by the tech industry are real and substantial; (ii) contrary to common belief, these benefits are recognized by competition authorities; (iii) recent competition regulatory activism should be understood in the context of a belief that it is necessary to preserve those benefits, by allowing new generations of tech disruptors to emerge; (iv) when tech companies face competition investigations or interventions, they should resist the temptation to kneejerk dismissal of all possible concerns, which is unlikely to be effective in advancing their business interests, because it misunderstands the authorities’ thinking; and (v) smarter strategies involve engaging with the specific facts of a particular case (economic, legal and technical) to challenge whether proposed interventions or remedies are, in reality, both effective and proportionate.

Competition Law JournalVol. 23(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.