The Predicament of Antitrust Jurisprudence: Economics and the Monopolization of Price Discrimination Argument

Peritz, Rudolph J.R.

doi:10.2307/1372401

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Platforms often use "blanket" measures to obtain information and employ precision marketing to trap consumers in an information cocoon. These practices contribute to the formation of a digital divide, [10] as platforms refuse to disclose the process of using Algorithmic technology citing "trade secret" reasons. Furthermore, the platform market exhibits a significantly concentrated market ISSN 2616-5902 Vol.…”

Section: Causes Of Price Discrimination By Big Data Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Antitrust Regulation of Price Discrimination on Big Data Platforms

2023

AJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of the big data era has opened up new opportunities for price discrimination, rendering it a widespread and inescapable tactic for competition. However, the application of big data algorithms by highly influential platforms for consumer segmentation and the execution of dissimilar pricing methods within similar circumstances does not automatically breach the provisions governing price discrimination set forth in the Antimonopoly Law. Antitrust law only becomes relevant in cases where there is evidence of competition being restricted or harmed. However, limitations arise when applying the traditional identification method to the emerging industry of big data platforms, necessitating innovative and improved approaches. Therefore, we examine the illegality and necessity of regulating price discrimination within the domestic big data platform, whilst reviewing the current situation and regulatory dilemmas. We aim to improve the analytical methods of traditional anti-monopoly laws to uphold fair competition in the market of big data platforms.

show abstract

Section: Causes Of Price Discrimination By Big Data Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Antitrust Regulation of Price Discrimination on Big Data Platforms

2023

AJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the principal debate has been between a political/faimess and an efficiency/consumer-welfare model of antitrust policy (White 1991;Jacobs 1995), other more eclectic voices have been heard as well.2 For example, scholars who accept the need to apply the antitrust laws in economic terms contest that the Chicago school applies the correct insights or reaches the correct results in terms of enforcement policy (Areeda and Turner 1978, Q 105;Baker 1989;Krattemaker and Salop 1986).' In a different vein, Peritz, in his earlier work, describes the dynamics of this early period of antitrust law as an ongoing struggle between a competition based logic and a property based logic of the Sherman Act that continues even today (Peritz 1996(Peritz , 1994(Peritz , 1990a(Peritz , 1990b(Peritz , 1989a(Peritz , 1989b(Peritz , 1984Sklar 1990).…”

Section: Postmodern Antitrust Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Talk: Competition Policy in America

Waller

1997

Law & Social Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dreary debate has occupied the antitrust community over the past 25 to 30 years. The debate is a more elegant, scholarly version of the commercials for Miller Lite beer that ran during much of the same period. In the beer commercials, one group of modestly recognizable celebrities and personalities of the day shouted "Tastes great" while the opposing group shouted "Less filling." This was the extent of the debate. The antitrust equivalent of this debate involves distinguished academics and policymakers arguing whether antitrust law and policy should be "more efficient" or should incorporate "greater fairness." Both schools of thought have enjoyed their periods of supremacy. The more economically oriented efficiency camp, normally dubbed "The Chicago School," has reigned supreme since the mid-1970s as its narrower version of antitrust policy has been adopted by the Supreme Court, has been relied upon by the Reagan and Bush administrations, and has persuaded the majority of commentators. Today, that ascendancy is in jeopardy as the politics of the Clinton administration, new economic theories, and the globalization of the economy have led to actions more in line with the preferred outcomes, if not the reasoning, of the beleaguered fairness advocates.

show abstract

The Predicament of Antitrust Jurisprudence: Economics and the Monopolization of Price Discrimination Argument

Abstract: Adherents to the Law and Economics Approach (LEA)

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Study on Antitrust Regulation of Price Discrimination on Big Data Platforms

Study on Antitrust Regulation of Price Discrimination on Big Data Platforms

Market Talk: Competition Policy in America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About