Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act

With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) the European Union has taken significant steps in the regulation of large digital market ecosystems. Data protection and competition law are becoming increasingly intertwined, and the DMA’s goals are tightly aligned with them. However, the provision explicitly intended to address the use (and cross-use) of data within gatekeepers’ ecosystems leaves much to be desired. Art. 5(2) DMA offers no substantive new obligations over the established GDPR system, especially in light of the ECJ’s judgement in Meta v. Bundeskartellamt . Furthermore, the consent exception on which it relies leaves a distinct risk of anti-competitive effects and decreasing privacy as a result of information asymmetries and the powerful market position of gatekeepers. However, art. 6(2) DMA also restricts gatekeepers’ ability to use data, if it was received through gatekeepers’ business users. The protective value of the DMA can be significantly increased if the European Commission adopts broad interpretations of when data is used “in competition with business users”, when it is “collected through commercial activities of business users or their customers” and when it is obtained “on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper”. Doing so would conform to the interconnected nature of ecosystems’ data collection practices and their competitive position, and it would bolster the Commission’s ability to act against both the anti-competitive effects and potential privacy infringements of data pooling, above and beyond what art. 5(2) DMA offers. • Art. 5(2) DMA does not add any obligations over the GDPR’s data protection system. • Whether there are notable procedural benefits to art. 5(2) DMA is still uncertain. • Instead, broad interpretation of art. 6(2) DMA supports privacy and competition. • Gatekeeper platforms’ data processing must be seen in the context of competition.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Review of Law and Economics
Published
2025-04-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106265
Primary Topic
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act

Peter J. van de Waerdt
International Review of Law and Economics
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
article

Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act

Peter J. van de Waerdt
article en

Abstract

With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) the European Union has taken significant steps in the regulation of large digital market ecosystems. Data protection and competition law are becoming increasingly intertwined, and the DMA’s goals are tightly aligned with them. However, the provision explicitly intended to address the use (and cross-use) of data within gatekeepers’ ecosystems leaves much to be desired. Art. 5(2) DMA offers no substantive new obligations over the established GDPR system, especially in light of the ECJ’s judgement in Meta v. Bundeskartellamt . Furthermore, the consent exception on which it relies leaves a distinct risk of anti-competitive effects and decreasing privacy as a result of information asymmetries and the powerful market position of gatekeepers. However, art. 6(2) DMA also restricts gatekeepers’ ability to use data, if it was received through gatekeepers’ business users. The protective value of the DMA can be significantly increased if the European Commission adopts broad interpretations of when data is used “in competition with business users”, when it is “collected through commercial activities of business users or their customers” and when it is obtained “on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper”. Doing so would conform to the interconnected nature of ecosystems’ data collection practices and their competitive position, and it would bolster the Commission’s ability to act against both the anti-competitive effects and potential privacy infringements of data pooling, above and beyond what art. 5(2) DMA offers. • Art. 5(2) DMA does not add any obligations over the GDPR’s data protection system. • Whether there are notable procedural benefits to art. 5(2) DMA is still uncertain. • Instead, broad interpretation of art. 6(2) DMA supports privacy and competition. • Gatekeeper platforms’ data processing must be seen in the context of competition.

International Review of Law and EconomicsVol. 82
University of Groningen (NL)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
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.

Reinforcing data protection and competition through art. 6(2) of the Digital Markets Act — Peter J. van de Waerdt · International Review of Law and Economics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS