By: Giuseppe Colangelo & Oscar Borgogno (Truth on the Market)
App stores are at the forefront of policy debates surrounding digital markets. The gatekeeping position of Apple and Google in the App Store and Google Play Store, respectively, and related concerns about the companies’ rule-setting and dual role, have been the subject of market studies launched by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), theNetherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM), the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Japan Federal Trade Commission (JFTC), and the U.S. House of Representatives.
Likewise, the terms and conditions for accessing app stores—such as in-app purchasing rules, restrictions on freedom of choice for smartphone payment apps, and near field communication (NFC) limitations—face scrutiny from courts and antitrust authorities around the world.
Finally, legislative initiatives envisage obligations explicitly addressed to app stores. Notably, the European Digital Markets Act (DMA) and some U.S. bills (e.g., the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act, both of which are scheduled to be marked up Jan. 20 by the Senate Judiciary Committee) prohibit designated platforms from, for example: discriminating among users by engaging in self-preferencing and applying unfair access conditions; preventing users from sideloading and uninstalling pre-installed apps; impeding data portability and interoperability; or imposing anti-steering provisions. Likewise, South Korea has recently prohibited app-store operators in dominant market positions from forcing payment systems upon content providers and inappropriately delaying the review of, or deleting, mobile content from app markets.
Despite their differences, these international legislative initiatives do share the same aims and concerns. By and large, they question the role of competition law in the digital economy. In the case of app stores, these regulatory interventions attempt to introduce a neutrality regime, with the aim of increasing contestability, facilitating the possibility of switching by users, tackling conflicts of interests, and addressing imbalances in the commercial relationship. Ultimately, these proposals would treat online platforms as akin to common carriers or public utilities.
All of these initiatives assume antitrust is currently falling, because competition rules apply ex post and require an extensive investigation on a case-by-case basis. But is that really the case?…
Featured News
FTC Urged to Enforce Rarely Used Antitrust Law Against Retail Giants
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
UK’s Fingleton Bolsters Team with New Additions
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
Britain’s Competition Regulator Clears Aviva’s Acquisition of AIG Life UK
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
White House Implements New AI Safeguards to Protect Rights and Safety
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
Denver Court Sets August Date for Kroger-Albertsons Merger Showdown
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Real Estate & Antitrust
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Systematic National Evidence of Steering by Real Estate Agents
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Compliance Now! Actionable Antitrust Advice for the Residential Real Estate Industry
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Real Estate Commissions: Some Insights from the Economics of Multi-Sided Platforms
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
New Ideas for Promoting Real Estate Brokerage Price Competition
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI