Skip to main content
Log in

Digital Data, Platforms and the Usual [Antitrust] Suspects: Network Effects, Switching Costs, Essential Facility

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript


This paper asks whether the large amounts of digital data that are typically observed on large technology platforms—such as Google, Facebook, Uber and Amazon—typically give rise to structural conditions that would lead to antitrust concerns. In particular, I evaluate whether digital data augments or decreases concerns with regard to network effects and switching costs. I also evaluate whether data should be thought of as an ‘essential facility’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912). Economists have questioned whether even this example was an essential facility, or was instead a horizontal monopoly (Reiffen and Kleit 1990).

  2. For an example of such a platform see


  4. and


  6. Turbotax, which owns Itsdeductible, is only loosely a platform, based on the fact that it may be an intermediary for interactions between me and my tax professional.

  7. There is a small increase in page latency - that is, how quickly it loads - if there are too many cookies, which is why data aggregators can be a helpful tool.






  13. Neumann et al. (2018) also suggests that sometimes these insights may not be accurate; it is the scope and size of the data itself that drives value in these markets.




  • Abrahamson, Z. (2014). Essential data. Yale Law Journal, 124, 867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajari, P., Chernozhukov, V., Hortaçsu, A., & Suzuki, J. (2018). The impact of big data on firm performance: An empirical investigation. NBER Working Paper No. 24334.

  • Bresnahan, T. F. (2001). Network effects and Microsoft. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 00–51.

  • Campbell, J., Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2015). Privacy regulation and market structure. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, L., & Tucker, C. (2017). Search engines and data retention: Implications for privacy and antitrust. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper: 23815.

  • Geronimo, M. (2017). Online browsing: Can, should, and may companies combine online and offline data to learn about you. Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal, 9, 211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graef, I. (2016). Data as essential facility: Competition and innovation on online platforms (Vol. 68). Kluwer Law International, International Competition Law Series.

  • Grunes, A., & Stucke, M. (2016). Big data and competition policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2013). When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(5), 561–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2017). Can big data protect a firm from competition? Competition Policy International. CPI Antitrust Chronicle.

  • Miller, A., & Tucker, C. (2011). Can healthcare information technology save babies? Journal of Political Economy, 2, 289–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A., & Tucker, C. (2014). Health information exchange, system size and information silos. Journal of Health Economics, 33(2), 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, N., Tucker, C., & Whitfield, T. (2018). How effective is black-box digital consumer profiling and audience delivery?: Evidence from field studies. New York: Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitofsky, R., Patterson, D., & Hooks, J. (2002). The essential fecilities doctrine under us antitrust law. Antitrust Law Journal, 70, 443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiffen, D., & Kleit, A. N. (1990). Terminal railroad revisited: Foreclosure of an essential facility or simple horizontal monopoly? The Journal of Law and Economics, 33(2), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stucke, M. E., & Ezrachi, A. (2016). When competition fails to optimize quality: A look at search engines. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 18, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stucke, M. E., & Grunes, A. P. (2016). Big data and competition policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, C. (2018). Network effects and market power. Antitrust, 32(2), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Tucker.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tucker, C. Digital Data, Platforms and the Usual [Antitrust] Suspects: Network Effects, Switching Costs, Essential Facility. Rev Ind Organ 54, 683–694 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: