Welcome speech by Commissioner Vestager, EU Competition Commissioner
"We’re at a critical time, in the story of digital technology; a time when we need to decide between possible futures. There’s still hope for a future where digital technology lives up to its potential to make our lives better, where innovation is strong, where values, like fairness and democracy, are deeply embedded in the way that technology works. But it’s just as easy to imagine the opposite."
Panel 1 focused on the role of data in competition policy and regulation. It was argued that (a) data, not algorithms, are the crucial input; and (b) most datasets contain some personal data, which has an impact on the legal regime and therefore the regulatory solutions in the field of data. Next, several forms of consumer harm in the data economy were discussed, from exclusion through self-preferencing to exploitation through privacy harm and personalised pricing. It is possible to view the consumer online ecosystem as one dominated by consumer tracking and manipulation, with many visible and less visible constraints on consumer choices. At the same time, it was argued that there is little empirical support for the arguments that privacy has no economic foundation and that data collection is necessary to provide "free" online services in exchange. In this regard, it seems that (a) the so-called apparent "privacy paradox" may be explained by consumers experiencing "learned helplessness"; (b) consumers do not always benefit from data collection, i.e. the surplus generated from data collection may not be fairly shared with consumers. Moreover, since the uses of data are not always clear even to the data holder, there may be an incentive to over-invest in data collection ("data hoarding"). Finally, it was argued that regulation should include democratic values such as quality, fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Panel 2 focused on digital platforms. There was a consensus among the panelists that most digital platform markets are characterized by the presence of few players with market power. This market power might allow incumbents to essentially act as regulators setting the conditions for access to the market as well as to discriminate among business users and/or exploit them, which might ultimately affect consumer choice. It is therefore important to check whether this market power was earned on the merits or rather through anti-competitive practices. Importantly, the necessity of preserving the possibility of entry in these markets – which would have positive effects on innovation and consumers – was stressed. The discussion focused on possible ways of addressing and solving the competition concerns associated with market power: (i) structural solutions aimed at removing or limiting the agglomeration of power; (ii) behavioural remedies (such as preventing self-preferencing; guaranteeing access; regulating prices; etc.); as well as (iii) possible solutions aimed at empowering users to rebalance their relationship with the platforms. The importance of consumers was also a key element of the discussion. In this context, it was also stressed that competition enforcement is not always the right or the sole tool to protect consumer welfare. Regulation also has an important role to play, but should be informed by competition law principles.
Panel 3 discussed several themes relating to artificial intelligence (AI), data, and platforms. It was stated that AI has not changed so much – what has changed is the amount of data and computing power. Because data provides so many insights into consumer behaviour, the boundaries of businesses can change, as businesses become able to enter new markets thanks to data collected. With regard to data, the panelists stated that consumers don't seem to have a good understanding of the value of their data: one way to empower consumers would be for third parties to represent consumers and exercise their data rights on their behalf. This would be a market-driven solution that needs to be incentivised through the regulatory framework. Another solution would be for consumers to use data "cards" – somewhat like organ donor cards – stating their preferences with regard to data sharing. But it is also necessary to have clear definitions of companies' proprietary data and consumers' own data. The panelists also noted that the ad-supported online business model is not a problem in itself as long as it preserves cybersecurity and consumer choice, and it provides better measurement of the value of targeted ads to advertisers. Finally, it was argued that competition policy or regulatory efforts should take account of not only data as such, but also the data infrastructure, such as devices, cables, and the cloud.
Panel 4 focused on the role of competition policy to preserve digital innovation, under different perspectives. First, it was argued that, although the trend towards concentration that characterize the digital markets might not necessarily or primarily be influenced by the level of competition enforcement (or lack thereof), competition policy certainly has an important role to play in preserving digital innovation. This is because in such concentrated markets it is all the more important to ensure market contestability. Competition authorities must therefore act against incumbent’s attempt to prevent entry. In this regard, it was stressed that competition authorities should not shy away from bringing new cases and adopting pioneering approaches, if necessary balancing the novelty of the approach with the level of sanctions. The aim of competition enforcement should be to maintain diversity, protect competition as a process of rivalry (which implies the presence of several actors in the market), and ultimately allow consumers – not intermediaries – to decide which innovation should prevail. Finally, the panel discussed the role of competition policy (and public intervention in general) not only in fixing market failures, but also in promoting innovation and developing new technologies.
