全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

数字平台自我优待行为反垄断法规制的困境与出路
Predicament and Outlet of Anti-Monopoly Law Regulation of Self-Preferential Treatment Behavior of Digital Platform

DOI: 10.12677/ecl.2025.141169, PP. 1361-1367

Keywords: 数字平台,自我优待,反垄断法,滥用市场支配地位
Digital Platform
, Self-Preferential Treatment, Anti-Monopoly Law, Abuse of Market Dominance

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

数字经济平台在逐利性本能的趋势下,为了获得更大的经济效益,通过歧视性排序、恶意分析第三方经营数据等方式优待下游市场的经营业务。将竞争优势进行跨市场的传导。从本质上分析,竞争优势的跨市场传导在一定程度上构成了对市场优势地位的滥用,应当通过反垄断法来进行规制。但是由于目前判断数字平台缺乏自我优待行为违法性认定的标准、市场支配地位难以认定、正当理由的抗辩理由不合理滥用模糊了自我优待行为的反垄断法规制的边界。故本文提出需要明确平台自我优待行为违法性判定的独立框架与要件、完善数字平台相关市场界定、规范自我优待行为的合理限度等角度以期明确平台自治的合理限度,为数字平台经济的未来的发展提供坚实有力的保障。
Under the trend of profit-seeking instinct, digital economy platforms give preferential treatment to the business of downstream markets through discriminatory sorting and malicious analysis of third-party business data in order to obtain greater economic benefits. Transmit competitive advantage across markets. In essence, the cross-market transmission of competitive advantage constitutes an abuse of market dominance to a certain extent, and should be included in the scope of anti-monopoly laws and regulations. However, due to the lack of standards for determining the illegality of self-preferential treatment on digital platforms, the difficulty in determining market dominance, and the unreasonable abuse of justifiable defenses, the boundaries of anti-monopoly laws and regulations for self-preferential treatment have blurred. Therefore, this paper proposes that it is necessary to clarify the independent framework and requirements for determining the illegality of platform self-preferential behavior, improve the definition of the relevant market of digital platforms, and standardize the reasonable limits of self-preferential behavior, so as to clarify the reasonable limits of platform autonomy and provide a guarantee for the future development of the platform economy.

References

[1]  观察者. 创纪录! 欧盟向谷歌开出24.2亿欧元反垄断罚金[EB/OL].
https://www.guancha.cn/TMT/2017_06_27_415351.shtml, 2017-06-27.
[2]  Colomo, P.I. (2020) Self-Preferencing: Yet Another Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles. World Competition, 43, 417-446.
https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020022
[3]  孙晋, 马姗姗. 数字平台自我优待的反垄断规制困境与优化进路[J]. 法治研究, 2024(1): 139-149.
[4]  张晨颖. 公共性视角下的互联网平台反垄断规制[J]. 法学研究, 2021, 43(4): 149-170.
[5]  时建中, 马栋. 双重身份视角下平台自治与反垄断监管的界限[J]. 竞争政策研究, 2020(4): 41-53.
[6]  丁茂中. 自我优待的反垄断规制问题[J]. 法学论坛, 2022, 37(4): 87-97.
[7]  杨文明. 网络平台独家交易的违法性分析[J]. 现代法学, 2021, 43(4): 156-167.
[8]  许光耀. 支配地位滥用行为的反垄断法调整[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2018: 212-215.
[9]  孟雁北, 赵泽宇. 反垄断法下超级平台自我优待行为的合理规制[J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 28(1): 70-82.
[10]  张素伦, 王晓晔. 反垄断法中的相关市场界定[M]. 北京: 社会科学出版社, 2014: 239-240.
[11]  朱宏文, 王健. 反垄断法——转变中的法律[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2006: 221-222.
[12]  邹开亮, 王霞. 互联网平台市场支配地位的认定障碍与路径优化[J]. 价格理论与实践, 2021(4): 26-32.
[13]  邓辉. 数字广告平台的自我优待: 场景、行为与反垄断执法的约束性条件[J]. 政法论坛, 2022, 40(3): 103-116.
[14]  丁晓东. 网络中立与平台中立——中立性视野下的网络架构与平台责任[J]. 法制与社会发展, 2021, 27(4): 122-142.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133