Is the market for digital privacy a failure?
- 813 Downloads
Conventional wisdom holds that the market for digital privacy fails owing to widespread informational asymmetry between digital firms and their customers, behavioral biases exhibited by those customers, and negative externalities from data resale. This paper supplies both theoretical and empirical reasons to question the standard market failure conclusion. On the theoretical side, I argue that digital markets are not qualitatively different from markets for other consumer goods. To wit, just as in traditional markets, it is costly to measure product attributes (such as “privacy”) and, just as in more traditional settings, some firms offer credible commitments to reduce the threat of potential opportunism. On the empirical side, I conduct a survey of Google’s users. The most important results of this survey suggest that, at least with respect to Google, (a) the extent of informational asymmetry is minimal and (b) the demands for “unconstrained” and “constrained” privacy diverge substantially. Significantly, 86% of respondents express no willingness to pay for additional privacy when interacting with Google. Among the remaining 14%, the average expressed willingness to pay is low.
KeywordsDigital privacy Survey Market failure Privacy paradox
JEL ClassificationD23 D62 K24 L86
I wish to thank Chris Coyne, Peter Boettke, Peter Leeson, William H.J. Hubbard, Alessandro Acquisti, David Lucas, Noah Gould, Nicholas Freiling, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions. Any errors are my own.
Caleb Fuller received funding from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University to pay Haven Insights, LLC to conduct the initial survey. In response to a revise and resubmit request, a modified survey was conducted by Haven Insights, LLC and its findings replaced the initial survey’s results. The funding for the second survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation.
- Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 21–29). ACM.Google Scholar
- Acquisti, A. (2012). Privacy and market failures: Three reasons for concern, and three reasons for hope. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 10, 227–233.Google Scholar
- Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In International workshop on privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36–58). Springer.Google Scholar
- Alchian, A. A. (1967). Pricing and society. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
- Benson, B. (1998). How to secede in business without really leaving: Evidence of the substitution of arbitration for litigation. In D. Gordon (Ed.), Secession, state, and liberty. New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionGoogle Scholar
- Berman, J., & Mulligan, D. (1998). Privacy in the digital age: Work in progress. Nova Law Review, 23, 551–582.Google Scholar
- Brown, I. (2016). The economics of privacy, data protection and surveillance. In Handbook on the economics of the internet. Available at SSRN 2358392 (2013).Google Scholar
- Calo, R. (2013). Digital market manipulation. George Washington Law Review, 82, 995–1051.Google Scholar
- Classroom.com. How much do Americans spend on soft drinks? September 29, 2017. https://classroom.synonym.com/how-much-do-americans-spend-on-soft-drinks-12081634.html.
- Cooper, J. C. (2012). Privacy and antitrust: Underpants gnomes, the first amendment, and subjectivity. George Mason Law Review, 20, 1129–1146.Google Scholar
- Farrell, J. (2012). Can privacy be just another good? Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 10, 251–264.Google Scholar
- Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change. FTC report, 1-112. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-report-protectingconsumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations/120326privacyreport.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2019.
- Gertz, J. D. (2002). The purloined personality: Consumer profiling in financial services. San Diego Law Review, 39, 943.Google Scholar
- Hirsch, D. D. (2010). The law and policy of online privacy: Regulation, self-regulation, or co-regulation. Seattle University Law Review, 34, 439–480.Google Scholar
- Hoofnagle, C. J. (2003). Reflections on the NC JOLT symposium: The privacy self-regulation race to the bottom. NCJL & Tech., 5, 213–217.Google Scholar
- Hoofnagle, C.J. (2006). Privacy self regulation: A decade of disappointment. In: J. K. Winn (Ed.), Consumer Protection in the Age of the 'Information Economy.Google Scholar
- Hoofnagle, C. J., & Whittington, J. (2013). Free: Accounting for the costs of the internet’s most popular price. UCLA Law Review, 61, 606–670.Google Scholar
- Hoofnagle, C.J., Soltani, A., Good, N., & Wambach, D.J. (2012). Behavioral advertising: The offer you can't refuse. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 6, 273–296Google Scholar
- Hui, K. L., & Png, I. (2005). Economics of privacy. In Handbook of information systems and economics. Available at SSRN 786846.Google Scholar
- Leeson, P. T., & Coyne, C. J. (2012). Conflict-inhibiting norms. Oxford handbook of the economics of peace and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2015). Americans’ attitudes about privacy, security, and surveillance. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
- Marthews, A., & Tucker, C. (2017). Government surveillance and internet search behavior. Available at SSRN 2412564.Google Scholar
- Newman, N. (2013). The costs of lost privacy: Consumer harm and rising economic inequality in the age of Google. William Mitchell Law Review, 40, 849.Google Scholar
- Odlyzko, A. (2003). Privacy, economics, and price discrimination on the Internet. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on electronic commerce (pp. 355–366). ACM.Google Scholar
- Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57, 1701–1777.Google Scholar
- Penney, J. (2016). Chilling effects: Online surveillance and Wikipedia use. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31, 117–182.Google Scholar
- Rose, E.A. (2005). Data users versus data subjects: are consumers willing to pay for property rights to personal information? In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- Sachs, B. R. (2009). Consumerism and information privacy: How Upton Sinclair can again save us from ourselves. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 205–252.Google Scholar
- Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
- Statista. (2017). Google’s ad revenue from 2001 to 2017 “in billion US dollars). https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
- Statista. (2018). Global digital population as of July 2018 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
- Strandburg, K. J. (2013). Free fall: The online market’s consumer preference disconnect. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 5, 95–172.Google Scholar
- Turow, J., King, J., Hoofnagle, C. J., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2009). Americans reject tailored advertising and three activities that enable it. Available at SSRN 1478214.Google Scholar
- Varian, H. R. (2002). Economic aspects of personal privacy. In W.H. Lehr & L. Pupillo (Eds.), Cyber Policy and Economics in an Internet Age (pp. 127–137). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
- Williamson, O. E. (1983). Credible commitments: using hostages to support exchange. The American Economic Review, 73(4), 519–540.Google Scholar