Abstract
Today’s economy has transitioned from the traditional brick and mortar structure of doing business to that of digitalized economy. The latter functions with the aid of technological tools with ‘data’ being the most significant tool in today’s context. The issue has become even more critical with the advent of ‘big data’. It is argued that accumulation, analysis and usage of ‘big data’ enable creation of varied forms of entry barriers for new entrants and information asymmetries for customers which in turn affect ‘market competition’ adversely (Santesteban & Longpre The Antitrust Bulletin, 65(3), 459-485, 2020; Fast et al., 2021). Consequently, it is pertinent to revisit the traditional understanding of ‘market competition’ as stipulated in the antitrust laws across jurisdictions and specifically the Indian Competition Act, 2002. The existing regime being centred around neo-classical price theory is not equipped to comprehend the various dimensions of the digitalised world where ‘data’ is the new form of currency having effects on market power and, consequently, on market competition. Digital markets are multi-sided and non-linear in nature where ‘big data’ acts as a lubricant for their smooth functioning. Whether access to data provides any form of competitive advantage is the central question. A resource to provide any form of competitive advantage must be distinct, rare, inimitable, non-substitutable and valuable (Barney, 1991). If data carries such characteristics, the continuous percolation and usage of technology powered by ‘big data’ into the markets will affect the understanding of the basic competitive wrongs. Potential interdependencies between technology, data and market power also affect the understanding of ‘dominance’ as stipulated under the existing law. The unique challenges which ‘big data’ poses are not only restricted to competition policy but also extended to enforcement as they trigger overlapping constitutional concerns in relation to privacy. This demands for looking at the existing gap between competition law/policy and the ‘data’-driven challenges being faced in this ever-evolving digital economy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ibid.
Supra note 1
Supra note 2.
Supra note 4.
Supra note 2
Supra note 10, p. 12–13.
Supra note 34 at p. 29.
Supra note 34 at p. 197.
Supra note 3.
Supra note 20.
Ibid.
Supra note 29.
Supra note 49.
Supra note 58.
Ibid, Regulation 13(4).
References
Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2015). Context-aware recommender systems. In: Ricci F, Rokach L and Shapira B (eds) Recommender systems handbook. pp.191–226, (New York: Springer).
Autorité de la concurrence and Bundeskartellamt, Franco/German Study on Competition Law and Data, (2016) <https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Berichte/Big%20Data%20Papier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2>. Accessed 18 Mar 2022.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1) < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014920639101700108> accessed 30 March 2022.
Barney, J. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resourcebased view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.
Baum, J. A. C. & Dobbin, F. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17.
Bezos, J. P. (1997). Letter to shareholders, AMAZON.COM, INC. <https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2021/ar/Amazon-2020-Shareholder-Letter-and-1997-Shareholder-Letter.pdf> accessed 31 March 2022.
Bork, R. H. (1967). The goals of antitrust policy, The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the Seventy-ninth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 57(2), 242–253.
Botta, M., Wiedemann, K. (2020). To discriminate or not to discriminate? Personalised pricing in online markets as exploitative abuse of dominance 50 European Journal of Law and Economics 381 <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10657-019-09636-3> accessed 31 March 2022.
Brooke Group Ltd. (1993) . v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 509 U.S. 209.
Candeub, A. (2014). Behavioral economics, Internet search, and antitrust SSRN Electronic Journal <http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2414179> accessed 31 March 2022.
Cegedium v. Euris, French Competition Authority, Decision no. 14-D-06, dated08.07.2014.
Chadha, S. (2022). ‘Drivers cancelling the ride’, surge pricing top issues for consumers who book app-based taxis: Survey, Times of India < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/drivers-cancelling-the-ride-surge-pricing-top-issues-for-consumers-who-book-app-based-taxis-survey/articleshow/90718955.cms> accessed July 30, 2022.
Chen, P-Y. & Hitt, L. M. (2005). Information technology and switching costs, 9, < https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.1995&rep=rep1&type=pdf> accessed 31 March 2022.
Cheng, S-R. (2021) Market power and switching costs: An empirical study of online networking market. SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3979741> accessed 31 March 2022.
Competition Act, (2002) < https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/cci_pdf/competitionact2012.pdf> accessed 20 March, 2022.
De Mauro, A., Greco, M., & Grimaldi, M. (2016), A formal definition of big data based on its essential features, Library Review, 65(3),122–135, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/LR-06-2015-0061 accessed 22 March, 2022.
Diebold, F. X., Cheng, X., Diebold, S., Foster, D., Halperin, M., Lohr, S., Mashey, J., Nickolas, T., Pai, M., Pospiech, M., & Schorfheide, F. (2012). A personal perspective on the origin(s) and development of “big data”: The phenomenon, the term, and the discipline, available at <https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.297.4593> accessed on August 15, 2022.
Dini, J. (2000). Amazon losses widen but shares rise after-hours, THESTREET <http://www.thestreet.com/story/875924/1/amazon-losses-widen-but-shares-rise-after-hours.html> accessed 31 March 2022.
Douglas, E. M. (2021). The new antitrust/data privacy law interface, YALE L. J. Forum J, 647–684.
Elzinga, K. G. (1977). The goals of antitrust: Other than competition and efficiency, what else counts? 125 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1191 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3311439?origin=crossref> accessed 31 March 2022.
Ezrachi, A. (2018). EU competition law goals and the digital economy SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3191766> accessed 31 March 2022.
Fast, V., Schnurr, D., & Wohlfarth, M., (2021) Regulation of data-driven market power in the digital economy: Business value creation and competitive advantages from big data, < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3759664> accessed 01 August, 2022.
Ferdman, R. A. (2013). Amazon changes its prices more than 2.5 million times a day, QUARTZ, < https://qz.com/157828/amazon-changes-its-prices-more-than-2-5-million-times-a-day/> accessed July 21, 2022.
Foer, A., & Durst, A. (2018). The multiple goals of antitrust. The Antitrust Bulletin, 63(4), 494–508.
Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2017). Seeing like a market. Socio-Economic Review, 15(1), 9–29.
Fox, M. E. (2008). The efficiency paradox, in Robert Pitofsky, How the Chicago school overshot the mark (Oxford University Press) <http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372823.001.0001/acprof-9780195372823> accessed 31 March 2022.
Gambaro, M. (2018). Big data competition and market power, Mkt. & Competition L. Rev., 2, 99
Geradin, D., & Petit, N. (2006). Price discrimination under EC competition law: Another antitrust doctrine in search of limiting principles? 2 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 479 <http://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/2/3/479/872437/PRICE-DISCRIMINATION-UNDER-EC-COMPETITION-LAW> accessed 1 April 2022.
Google Shopping case, Cf. Commission, Decision of June 27, 2017, Case AT.39740 (para 2, 8, 5).
Google/Android case, (AT.40099 – Google Android), (2018) < https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/40099/40099_9993_3.pdf> accessed 23 March, 2022.
Google/Double Click merger case, Google/DoubleClick FTC File No. 071–0170, Statement by Federal Trade Commission < https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/418081/071220googledc-commstmt.pdf> accessed 28 March 2022.
Grunes, A. P. & Stucke, M. E. (2015). No mistake about it: The important role of antitrust in the era of big data, University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 269 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2600051> accessed March 31, 2022.
Hagiu, A. & Wright, J. Data-enabled learning, network effects and competitive advantage < http://andreihagiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Data-enabled-learning-May-2021.pdf> accessed 21 March 2022.
Harbour P. J. & Koslov, T. I. (2010). Section 2 in a Web 2.0 World: An expanded vision of relevant product markets, 76 ANTITRUST L.J. 785.
hiQ v. LinkedIn, 938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019).
Hoy, J. (2019). ‘Google ads vs Microsoft advertising: Which is better for my business?, Thee Digital < https://www.theedigital.com/blog/google-ads-vs-microsoft-advertising> accessed 30 March, 2022
Hu, H. et al. (2014). Toward scalable systems for big data analytics: A technology tutorial, 2 IEEE Access, accessed 14 March 2022.
ICN. (2020). Unilateral Conduct Working group, Survey report on substantial market power in digital market https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UCWG-Report-on-dominance-in-digital-markets.pdf accessed 31 March 2022.
Katz, M. L. (2019). Multisided platforms, big data, and a little antitrust policy. 54 Review of Industrial Organization 695 <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-019-09683-9> accessed 31 March 2022.
Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon’s antitrust paradox, 126 YALE L. J. 710.
Khan, L. (2014). Why you might pay more than your neighbor for the same bottle of salad dressing, QUARTZ < https://qz.com/168314/why-you-might-pay-more-than-your-neighbor-for-the-same-bottle-of-salad-dressing/ > accessed 05 August, 2022.
Kitchin, R., & McArdles G. (2016). What makes big data, big data? Exploring the ontological characteristics of 26 datasets, Bog Data & Society, 3(1).
Klishina, N. (2011). PPC Search: Google AdWords vs. Microsoft AdCenter (Bing), CallFire. http://www.callfire.com/blog/2011/01/07/ppc-search-google-adwords-vs-microsoft-adcenter-bing/.
Kubina, M., Varmus, M., & Kubinova, I. (2015). Use of big data for competitive advantage of company. 26 Procedia Economics and Finance, 561.
Lambrecht, A. & Tucker, C. (2015) Can big data protect a firm from competition? SSRN Electronic Journal <http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2705530> accessed 31 March 2022.
Lande, R. H. (1989). Chicago’s false foundation: Wealth transfers (not just efficiency) should guide antitrust. Antitrust Law Journal, 58(2), 631–644.
Lianos, I. (2018). The poverty of competition law: The long story, centre for law, economics and society, Research Paper Series No. 2/2018 www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/sites/cles/files/cles_2-2018.pdf accessed 29 March 2022.
Longman, P. (2019). Big tech is spying on your wallet < https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/07/big-tech-is-spying-on-your-wallet/> accessed 25 March, 2022.
Marty, F. (2020). Is the consumer welfare obsolete? A European Union competition law perspective GREDEG Working Paper No. 2020–13, <https://ideas.repec.org/s/gre/wpaper.html> accessed 31 March 2022.
Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC and others, Case No. 07 of 2012.
Mazzeo, M., & McDevitt, R. (2014). Business strategy and antitrust policy (Roger D Blair and D Daniel Sokol eds, Oxford University Press) <http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199388592.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199388592-e-011> accessed 31 March 2022.
Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, Case T-201/04, September 17, 2007.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2019). Government of India, The report of Competition Law Review Committee <https://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/Report-Competition-CLRC.pdf> accessed March 31, 2022.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. (2020). Motor vehicle aggregator guidelines issued to regulate shared mobility and reducing traffic congestion and pollution, Press Information Bureau <https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1676403 > accessed July 30, 2022.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, (2020). Motor vehicles aggregator guidelines, <https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/notifications_document/Motor%20Vehicle%20Aggregators27112020150046.pdf> accessed 25 March 2022.
Nuccio, M., & Guerzoni, M. (2019). Big data: Hell or heaven? Digital Platforms and Market Power in the Data-Driven Economy, Competition & Change, 23(3), 312–328.
Ohlhausen, M. K. & Okuliar, A. P. (2015). Competition, consumer protection, and the right [approach] to privacy, 80 ANTITRUST L.J. 121, 123.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). Big data: Bringing competition policy to the digital era <https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2016)14/en/pdf#:~:text=Definition%20of%20Big%20Data,-5.&text=According%20to%20De%20Mauro%20et,for%20its%20transformation%20into%20value.%E2%80%9D> accessed 31 March 2022.
PeopleBrowsr, Inc., And PeopleBrowsr Pty., Ltd., v. Twitter, Inc. (n.d) Case No. 3:12-cv-06120-EMC.
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unravelling the resource-based tangle. Managerial & Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323.
Pitofsky, R. (1979). The political content of antitrust, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1051–1075.
Posner, R. A. (1979). The Chicago school of antitrust analysis. 127 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 925 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3311787?origin=crossref> accessed 30 March 2021.
Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., Competition Commission of India in Case No. 37 of 2018.
Santesteban, C., & Longpre, S. (2020). How big data confers market power to big tech: Leveraging the perspective of data science. The Antitrust Bulletin, 65(3), 459–485.
Sadowski, J. (2019). “When data is capital: datafication, accumulation, and extraction”, big data & society 16(1).
Satyen Narendra Bajaj v. PayU Payments Private Limited & Anr., Competition Commission of India, Case No. 23 of 2019.
Shan, S., Luo, Y., Zhou, Y., & Wei, Y. (2019). Big data analysis adaptation and enterprises’ competitive advantages: The perspective of dynamic capability and resource-based theories. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(4), 406–420.
Sokol D. D. & Comerford, R. (2016). Antitrust and regulating big data, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1129.
Streitfeld, D. (2013). As Competition Wanes, Amazon cuts back discounts, N.Y. TIMES, <https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html> accessed 20 March 2022.
Stucke, M. E. & Grunes, A. P., (2015). Debunking the myths over big data and antitrust (2) CPI Antitrust Chronicle <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2612562> accessed March 31, 2022.
Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2021.
Suo moto case against WhatsApp Inc. LLC and Facebook Inc., Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2021.
United States Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission. (n.d). Horizontal merger guidelines <https://www.justice.gov/atr/horizontal-merger-guidelines-08192010 > accessed 28 March 2022.
Vaheesan, S. (2019). The Profound Nonsense of Consumer Welfare Antitrust”, p. 1- 16, The Antitrust Bulletin.
Vallabhaneni, A. K., & Geetha SP Entertainment LLP (2019) Competition Commission of India, Case No. 17.
Vinod Kumar Gupta v. (2016). WhatsApp Inc., Case No. 99.
Working Paper No. 2020–13, <https://ideas.repec.org/s/gre/wpaper.html> accessed 31 March 2022.
Yao, S., & Mela, C. F. (2011). A dynamic model of sponsored search advertising. Marketing Science, 30(3), 447–468.
Zettelmeyer, F. (2018). The economics of big data and personal information, presentation at the Federal Trade Commission, FTC HEARING 6, SESSION 2, Nov. 6, 2018, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/ftc-hearing-6-nov-6-session-2-economics-big-data-personalinformation. Accessed 28 Mar 2022.
Zuboff, S. (2020). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
There are no competing interests to declare. I confirm that the citations in the attached manuscript are accurate. I confirm that I have read the submission policy and that my manuscript complies with the journal’s submission policy. I confirm that any part of the manuscript does not violate copyright of others.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gupta, G. Does ‘big data’ provide a competitive advantage to firms: an antitrust analysis. Asian J Bus Ethics 11, 423–442 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-022-00159-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-022-00159-w