Skip to main content

The Problems of Administrative Liability for the Unfair Usage of Digital Platforms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Future Economic Growth, Social Adaptation, and Technological Perspectives

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research is determination of most significant features of the problem, mentioned above and the development of approaches to its solution. Taking into account the newness of this topic in the Russian legal space, the most productive research method in considered work is comparative method. It allowed to construct analogy with law enforcement practice of some foreign countries, which already created the necessary system of prohibitions and liability. Design/methodology/approach: During the research authors have collected the full information on the legal status of a subject, the abusing of its dominance and also have analysed the existing approaches to the implication of this status to the institutes of the digital economy. The search of information was conducted among scientific literature. It let to collect 20 sources, which helped to formulate the understanding of the abuse of dominance by using of digital platforms. Besides scientific literature, authors have analysed the law enforcement practice of foreign countries and some popular bills, discussed by Russian theoretics and practices of administrative and antitrust law. Basic research methods are formal legal (during the analysis of terms “dominance”, “digital platforms”) and comparative (during the comparison of status of digital platforms within the context of antitrust legislation in different countries. Findings: The result of the research is the author’s recommendations, oriented to the development of the system of prohibitions for dominant subjects, existing in Russian legislation, and also reformation of administrative liability for delicts in considered sphere. Originality/value: The intensive development of digital economy and corresponding technologies raises the issue on the necessity of the development of legal rules, which no longer respond to contemporary challenges. The realization of goods and services through the Internet is supported by government and convenient for customers, but such kind of trading is complex both for legislators and lawyers. One of the most discussable issues in this sphere is the issue on legal status of a subject, abusing dominance, and also the necessity of the adoption of new legal rules, regulating the deterrent force of a state to companies, reached the status of a dominant (or close to it) on a relevant market, by using of technological supremacy.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Belikova КM (2006) Abuse of a dominant position in the legislation, doctrine and law enforcement practice of the European Union and the common market of South America-Argentina, Brazil and Peru. Law and Policy 79(7):38–52

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belikova КM (2013) Limits of permitted market dominance and control over mergers and acquisitions of large parties of property in BRICS on the example of Russia, India and South Africa. Lawyer 20:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  3. Puzyrevskiy SA (2013) Violation of the antitrust laws through the abuse of a dominant position. Econ Law 5:27–49

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yakovleva AA (2013) Dominance and abuse of the commodity market in European Union law. Compet Law 3:25–28

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haucap J, Heimeshoff U (2014) Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization? Int Econ Econ Policy 11(1–2):49–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-013-0247-6. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  6. Egham UK (2015) Gartner says smartphone sales surpassed one billion units in 2014. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2015-03-03-gartner-says-smartphone-sales-surpassed-one-billion-units-in-2014. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  7. Dotsenko AV, Ivanov AYu (2016) Antitrust, digital platforms and innovation: Google’s case and developing approaches to protecting competition in the digital environment. Law 2:31–45

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vartaev RS, Garaev RZ, Kovalenko AI (2016) Abuse of dominance of digital platforms (Google case in Russia). Mod Compet 10(5(59)):89–141

    Google Scholar 

  9. Richter H, Slowinski PR (2019) The data sharing economy: on the emergence of new intermediaries. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 50(1):4–29

    Google Scholar 

  10. Antitrust: commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1624_en.htm. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  11. Google agrees to change its business practices to resolve FTC competition concerns in the markets for devices like smart phones, games and tablets, and in online search. Available at: https://ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/google-agrees-change-its-business-practices-resolve-ftc. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  12. Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. a…. Available at: http://justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-department-justice-s-antitrust-division-its-decision-close-its-investigations. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  13. FAS Russia opened a case against Google. Available at: https://fas.gov.ru/news/6113. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  14. The decision and order in case No. 1-14-21/00-11-15 5, 2015. Available at: https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/ad-54066-15/. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  15. The FAS media: FAS appointed a Google penalty in the amount of 438 million rubles. Available at: https://fas.gov.ru/publications/866. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  16. Report of the Federal Antimonopoly Service on the state of competition in the Russian Federation for 2017. Available at: https://fas.gov.ru/documents/658027. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  17. The FAS media: FAS presented the fifth Antimonopoly package. Available at: https://fas.gov.ru/publications/14947. Data accessed 18 Aug 2019

  18. Gazette No. 173 (2897) (0810) technology and media (2018) The fifth package got an fail, 5 Oct

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Yu. Sokolov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sokolov, A.Y., Krotov, K.S., Dzhamirze, B.Y., Batova, V.N. (2020). The Problems of Administrative Liability for the Unfair Usage of Digital Platforms. In: Kolmykova, T., Kharchenko, E. (eds) Digital Future Economic Growth, Social Adaptation, and Technological Perspectives. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 111. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39797-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39797-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39796-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39797-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics