Siga este link para ver outros tipos de publicações sobre o tema: Digital market regulation.
Artigos de revistas sobre o tema "Digital market regulation"
Crie uma referência precisa em APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, e outros estilos
Veja os 50 melhores artigos de revistas para estudos sobre o assunto "Digital market regulation".
Ao lado de cada fonte na lista de referências, há um botão "Adicionar à bibliografia". Clique e geraremos automaticamente a citação bibliográfica do trabalho escolhido no estilo de citação de que você precisa: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
Você também pode baixar o texto completo da publicação científica em formato .pdf e ler o resumo do trabalho online se estiver presente nos metadados.
Veja os artigos de revistas das mais diversas áreas científicas e compile uma bibliografia correta.
1
Zhang, Yudi. "The Regulation of the Digital Markets." International Journal of Education and Humanities 9, no. 2 (2023): 95–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v9i2.9720.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The introduction of the EU Digital Market Act (draft) provides an important reference for other countries to further strengthen digital market regulation and clarify the responsibilities of digital service providers. This article explains how to regulate digital markets by introducing the contents of the draft EU Digital Market Act (draft), and provides suggestions for other countries to regulate digital markets by referring to the contents of the draft EU digital Market Act (draft). In order to maintain the absolute security of big data, a key factor of production in the national digital economy, countries should take the initiative to adopt digital market regulation measures.
2
Chiarella, Maria Luisa. "Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA): New Rules for the EU Digital Environment." Athens Journal of Law 9, no. 1 (2022): 33–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.30958/ajl.9-1-2.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (known as DMA – “Digital Market Act”) sets clear rules for large online platforms. It aims to ensure that no large online platform that is in a “gatekeeper” position - to many users - abuses that position to the detriment of businesses wishing to access those users. The most innovative elements are the introduction of the legal figure of the “gatekeeper” and the provision of specific duties imposed on the same. The Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (known as DSA “Digital Services Act”) introduces a common set of rules on intermediaries’ obligations and accountability across the single market, aiming to ensure a high level of protection to all users. This paper aims to analyse the new provisions introduced by the Digital Service Package in the framework of market regulation policies. Keywords: Digital markets; Intermediary service; Online platforms; Online search engines; Market regulation; EU policies Ombudsman; Constitutional Institution; Unwillingness of Bureaucrats
3
Ariño, Monica. "Digital War and Peace: Regulation and Competition in European Digital Broadcasting." European Public Law 10, Issue 1 (2004): 135–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/euro2004008.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This article evaluates how sector specific regulation and competition law, in particular merger control, have influenced the evolution of digital broadcasting markets in Europe. Recent developments in the Spanish market are examined, as they illustrate well what are the principal challenges faced by public authorities when intervening in rapidly changing markets. The crucial and often controversial issue of market definition is discussed in greater detail. Finally, a general reflection on how competition law fails to address non-economic considerations that specifically apply to the media, such as the protection of pluralism, is presented.
4
Rusche, Christian. "Wachsen regulierte digitale Märkte?" Wirtschaftsdienst 104, no. 11 (2024): 807–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/wd-2024-0204.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract The EU countries, the United Kingdom (UK), and China are characterised by a high level of regulation of digital markets. In recent years, the EU and the UK have significantly tightened their regulations. The less dynamic data market in the EU and the UK compared to major players in the global economy suggests that more regulation hampers digital innovation.
5
Fuchikawa, Kazuhiko. "Regulations of Digital Platform Markets Under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act: Does the Regulation of Unfair Trade Practices Solve the Gordian Knot of Digital Markets?" Antitrust Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2020): 102–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003603x19898905.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
When it comes to digital platform markets, the competition authorities of Japan, the EU, and the United States share a similar approach toward the regulation of mergers. Additionally, they share a common approach with respect to exclusive dealings but apply slightly different rules concerning a refusal to deal in the regulation of monopolization. However, the regulation of Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) in Japan is unique in that it is possible to regulate a vertical nonprice restraint imposed by a company with a market share between 20% and 50%. The author explores the regulation in the digital platform markets by the UTPs under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act and examines the possibility of the regulations by the UTPs as an alternative method. This article argues that it is desirable, especially in the case of private suits, that the assessment of market definition and the burden of proof be simplified.
6
Muliani, Alisya, Sukarmi Sukarmi, and Djumikasih Djumikasih. "Reformulation of Digital Market Regulations Against Indications of Monopolistic Practices in the Digital Spaces (Indonesian Perspective)." International Journal of Business, Law, and Education 5, no. 1 (2024): 800–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v5i1.487.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This research aims to analyze indications of monopolistic practices in the digital space and find formulations for digital market regulation to create a fairer digital ecosystem. Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition does not yet specifically regulate the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition in the digital space, so the incompleteness of this regulation needs to be investigated further. This research was conducted using a normative juridical approach. The results of this research show that indications of monopolistic practices in the digital space are related to the unclear categories of business actors who sell at a loss in e-commerce and the combination of social media and e-commerce. Based on these weaknesses, the author obtains a formulation based on the Digital Markets Act regulations in the European Union which creates "gatekeepers" in the digital economy to create a healthy market.
7
Usova, N., M. Loginov, and E. Plakhtiy. "Problems of legal regulation of the digital services market." Management and Business Administration, no. 1 (March 30, 2022): 33–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.33983/2075-1826-2022-1-33-44.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The service sector occupies a significant share in the national economy and the issues of legal regulation of this issue remain insufficiently studied. The digital services market is among the innovative and significant for ensuring the competitiveness of the national economy. The basis of this study was the regulatory legal acts regulating the digital services market. The authors, based on the methods of analysis, grouping and comparison, analyzed the development of the digital services market and the state of legal regulation of this market, which served as the basis for the proposed recommendations for further improvement of regulatory instruments of the market under study.
8
Arutyunyan, A. A., and A. D. Berbeneva. "The evolution of antimonopoly regulation of digital platforms." Digital Law Journal 3, no. 3 (2022): 79–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-3-79-96.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This paper provides comprehensive analysis of the evolution of approaches to antimonopoly regulation of digital market participants, the so-called “digital platforms”. So far business practices of digital platforms and their compliance with the antitrust rules have been widely studied by both the watchdogs of various countries and the expert community. However, a few years ago the research into these issues was not that thorough neither in science nor in practice Today, with sufficient experience on regulation of digital markets, legal acts are being drawn up in various jurisdictions that cover approaches to assessing the market position of digital platforms, as well as acceptable and unacceptable practices. Besides, specific control mechanisms are being designed to deter antitrust violations in digital markets. At the same time, digital technologies are evolving too fast. This will inevitably pose new challenges to regulators and science. New digital services, business models and options for expanding markets, for example, by developing ecosystem products, will appear. The paper presents analysis of the main stages in the development of antimonopoly regulation of digital markets: from the first antitrust cases against IT-companies to creation of special regulatory and control mechanisms of digital platforms. Furthermore, potential development of digital markets and their antitrust regulation both in Russia and abroad is considered. The paper offers review of legal acts and regulatory initiatives in the area of digital markets in different regions worldwide and refers to the key antitrust cases that have affected the regulatory approaches.
9
Kromm, M. V. "Modern trends of antimonopoly regulation of digital services market in the world." Bulletin of "Turan" University, no. 3 (October 7, 2021): 235–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.46914/1562-2959-2021-1-3-235-242.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article analyzes and considers the main trends in the development of the digital services market for 2018–2021 and illustrative graphs are shown. The purpose of this article is to disclose the current problem of antimonopoly regulation and the development of competition in digital markets and to study the dynamics of the development of the global state of the digital sphere. When analyzing the current state of the digital services market and the development of antimonopoly regulation both in Kazakhstan and in foreign countries, analytical and economic and statistical methods were used, as well as methods of collecting information and abstraction for effective search, grouping, processing and generalization of data. Now the digital services market is developing dynamically and there is an active growth of Internet users around the world. There is also a constant increase in online shopping and the COVID–19 coronavirus pandemic further contributes to this growth. To protect the rights and interests of consumers, digital market players, “beginners”, and to ensure equal and fair competition conditions, it became necessary to revise the regulatory mechanisms used by the competition authorities in many countries. There is an active establishment of tighter regulation of digital platforms by focusing on their specific business models and regulating their access to data so that new entrants can compete on an equal footing with today’s large conglomerates. Important changes are being made to the rules on abuse of dominance in digital markets related to the behavior of “middlemen” That is, the task of the antimonopoly authorities is to create the necessary conditions for the development and stimulation of competition in this industry.
10
Timofeev, Stanislav V. "DIGITAL MONOPOLIES: TASKS AND PROSPECTS OF LEGISLATIVE ANTIMONOPOLY REGULATION." RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series Economics. Management. Law, no. 4 (2022): 109–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.28995/2073-6304-2022-4-109-120.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article deals with the issues of antimonopoly regulation of the activities of companies that are global digital giants. The activity of such companies is a kind of challenge for the antimonopoly authorities in all coun- tries of the world. Against the background of the pandemic, digital platforms are gaining special importance and are rapidly increasing their market share. During the period of active development of the digital economy, which is based on the information technology and innovative solutions, issues arise that are not typical for traditional markets for goods and services. There is a need to develop a new system of antitrust regulation that can protect competition, but at the same time takes into account the interests of companies operating in digital markets. In the digital economy, the main categories of antimonopoly regulation are fundamentally changing: it is more difficult to determine whet-her the price is monopoly; the points of application of the above regulation are shifting, as more and more transactions take place online and it is impossible to determine a specific responsible person; it becomes more complicated to form an evidence base in an antitrust case. Since the Internet overcomes both physical and legal boundaries, when building a regulatory system for the digital economy, it is necessary to take into account international experience and promote synchronization of the an- titrust laws of those countries where the largest players in digital markets are based. Participants in economic activity do not try to compete in some com- modity market, where are already many players, but generate new markets where they strive to become absolute monopolists. Today, “digital giants” have a large number of market power levers through the use and creation of new platforms, control and collection of data about users and product market par- ticipants, and the use of innovative methods of personalized marketing.
11
Revenko, L. S., and N. S. Revenko. "Digital Markets and Digital Services: A New Stage of the EU Internal Market Regulation." Contemporary Europe, no. 2 (123) (December 15, 2024): 98–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.31857/s0201708324020086.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article explores the EU Digital Markets Law and Digital Services Law adopted in the fall of 2022. The new legislative framework aims to control large digital platforms and search engines that have become market dominant and abuse their power by discriminating against third–party businesses, and to make online platforms and intermediaries more accountable. The authors provide examples of troubling practices by such companies. The provisions of the first document apply to the socalled gatekeepers, which include service providers that have become gateways between businesses and end users and for this reason have a significant impact on the EU internal market, of the second one – to providers of intermediary services qualified as mere conduit, caching and hosting services. A separate group includes very large online platforms and search engines. The laws set quantitative thresholds for companies subject to the laws. They contain lists of rights and responsibilities of such companies. The laws caused conflicting responses. One group of experts supports them, believing that they will solve many problems faced by businesses and ordinary users. Other researchers argue that new laws were not necessary and existing legal framework should have been improved. They also criticize certain provisions of the laws. The authors conclude that the laws correspond to the current market reality, but their application changes the competition environment.
12
Budzinski, Oliver, and Juliane Mendelsohn. "Regulating Big Tech: From Competition Policy to Sector Regulation?" ORDO 72-73, no. 1 (2023): 215–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ordo-2023-2015.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract The European Commission has proposed a new regulatory tool to govern of digital markets. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) intents to limit the market behavior of so-called gatekeepers to ensure contestable and fair digital markets. We review the provisions of the DMA both from a legal and from an economic perspective. Notwithstanding a number of benefits, we identify several issues with the current proposal. When looking at the core provisions of the proposal from an economic perspective, a number of of contention arise: many of the provisions seem to be quite narrow in scope and it seems difficult to extrapolate more general rules from them; the economic harm of some of the provisions is both uncertain and in principle debatable; the alleged (self-executing; non self-executing) distinction between different types of obligations cannot be verified; and, in addition, Art. 5–7 DMA seem to contain three distinct regulatory instruments; last but not least, while the DMA seeks to control existing gatekeepers, the “tipping” of markets and the rise of further gatekeepers is not guaranteed by the proposed regulation, this in turn leads to a larger critical analysis of the gatekeeper as the DMA’s norm addressee. While the goals and nature of the DMA have gained in clarity throughout the legislative process, its scope remains somewhat obtuse. On the one hand it seems set on regulating gatekeepers as they exist today, on the other, it also aims to bring about systemic change in the digital single market. How it expects to achieve the latter is not entirely clear. On closer examination, the DMA also contains a complex enforcement regime that not only depends on the compliance of gatekeepers but may also forestall the envisioned speed and efficacy of the instrumment. In this light and by critically looking at the nature of ex ante and ex post measures in broader competition policy, we conclude that a reform of the competition policy regime would better suit the overalls aims of reining in big tech in future.
13
Krarup, Troels, and Maja Horst. "European artificial intelligence policy as digital single market making." Big Data & Society 10, no. 1 (2023): 205395172311538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20539517231153811.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Rapid innovation in digital services relying on artificial intelligence (AI) challenges existing regulations across a wide array of policy fields. The European Union (EU) has pursued a position as global leader on ethical AI regulation in explicit contrast to US laissez-faire and Chinese state surveillance approaches. This article asks how the seemingly heterogeneous approaches of market making and ethical AI are woven together at a deeper level in EU regulation. Combining quantitative analysis of all official EU documents on AI with in-depth reading of key reports, communications, and legislative corpora, we demonstrate that single market integration constitutes a fundamental but overlooked engine and structuring principle of new AI regulation. Under the influence of this principle, removing barriers to competition and the free flow of data, on the one hand, and securing ethical and responsible AI, on the other hand, are seen as compatible and even mutually reinforcing.
14
Velikorossov, Vladimir V., Andrey L. Poltarykhin, and Sergei A. Filin. "METHODS OF COUNTERING UNFAIR COMPETITION IN THE DIGITAL PLATFORM MARKET." EKONOMIKA I UPRAVLENIE: PROBLEMY, RESHENIYA 6/1, no. 138 (2023): 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2023.06.01.007.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article discusses methods of countering unfair competition in the digital platform market. Digital markets, as a catalyst for the development of the country’s economic processes, need clear and structured regulation. However, at the moment, digital markets in Russia require both the updating of legal regulation and the formation of a culture of healthy competition among business entities functioning in them. Digital markets, in particular digital platforms, in Russia are at the stage of development, and the issue of unfair competition in the digital space is especially acute, which determines the finding of ways and methods to combat it.
15
Pantelidis, Konstantinos. "The DMA Procedure: Areas to Improve." World Competition 47, Issue 2 (2024): 157–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/woco2024016.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The introduction of the Digital Markets Act (the ‘DMA’) marked the beginning of a new regulatory framework for limiting the impact of strong platforms in digital markets. With the aim of ensuring fairness and contestability in digital markets, the new Regulation provided for a detailed administrative process, in the form of market investigations, for determining which of the digital platforms act as gatekeepers in their respective markets, whether the designated gatekeepers comply with their obligations, and to what extent new obligations must be introduced to account for new developments. This article discusses some preliminary issues related to the European Commission’s administrative procedure for enforcing the new regulation. Upon summarizing the key elements of the DMA procedure, it focuses on four issues: the relationship between the DMA and competition law and problems regarding their parallel application; the obligation for recording interviews conducted for the purposes of gathering information regarding the subject matter of a market investigation; access to file limitations; and the absence of provisions regarding private enforcement and the possibility for third parties to claim damages.
16
Egorova, M. A., and E. S. Khokhlov. "Current Issues of Commodity Markets Analysis for the Antitrust Regulation Purposes." Actual Problems of Russian Law 16, no. 1 (2021): 111–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2021.122.1.111-119.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The paper raises a number of issues related to the analysis of the state of competition in commodity markets in modern conditions. In particular, the specifics of defining the market in relation to differentiated goods, multilateral markets and digital platforms, and innovative products are considered in detail. In the context of informatization and the dynamic development of the digital economy, big data is the most important resource ofmany large companies and, accordingly, there are many antitrust aspects of their use. The paper describes the role of big data in market analysis, including situations in which it can lead to anticompetitive harm, as well as its impact on consumer rights. The paper analyzes approaches to the state of competition in the market, taking into account such phenomena as the digital economy, network effects and big data. However, it is noted that at present, the most common is a full-fledged economic analysis, which weighs the positive and negative consequences actions of business entities in the market. The authors conclude that traditional market analysis tools are not always able to assess the state of competition properly. In addition, it is emphasized that in the absence of unequivocal answers to the challenges of the digital economy in the field of market analysis, there is a need for further scientific research on a number of problems in analyzing the state of competition in product markets.
17
Staroverova, O. "Features of Regulation of Financial Markets in the Context of Digitalization." Scientific Research and Development. Economics of the Firm 13, no. 2 (2024): 68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.12737/2306-627x-2024-13-2-68-74.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article is devoted to the peculiarities of financial market regulation in the context of digitalization, as well as the peculiarities of the influence of digital instruments on various segments of the financial market. The paper examines new trends and transformations in the credit, monetary, stock and insurance markets; provides examples of indicators for analyzing the effectiveness of its regulation, as well as examines in detail the impact of digitalization on the insurance market and the banking system (within the credit market) and the main risks arising in digital financial services. To assess the effectiveness of financial market regulation, the author proposed to apply an individual and comprehensive approach.
18
Egorova, M. A., O. V. Kozhevina, and A. Yu Kinev. "Legal Protection of Competition in the Emerging Digital Markets." Lex Russica 74, no. 2 (2021): 40–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.171.2.040-049.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
At a new stage in the development of digitalization, the main challenge is the expotential growth of quantity, quality, diversity of links between citizens, organizations, development institutions and legal regulation, public authorities. Interrelations are dynamic and unstable due to a number of factors because of insufficient synchronization between all elements of socio-economic systems and institutions.The paper examines topical issues of competition law in terms of legal regulation of digital markets. The authors provide for the legal interpretation of the digital market. Key aspects of legal regulation of digital markets are defined. The authors propose instruments of legal regulation of emerging digital markets for the Russian Federation. Their proposals are based on generalization of European experience and practice of the OECD countries.The authors substantiate that widespread digitalization threatens to monopolize economic relations. And this is monopolization of a new, not classical character. Therefore, it is important to identify properly the forms and methods of legal protection of competition in specific digital markets.Based on the results of the study, the authors conclude that the development of the digital economy and the formation of new market relations establish prerequisites for the improvement of antimonopoly regulation, legal rules unification for the protection of competition in global digital markets. Digital markets differ from traditional ones. Therefore, they need special legal regulation. The practice of antimonopoly regulation in the OECD countries should be considered in the context of their consistency with Russian legislative conditions.
19
Popova, Irina. "The European Union’s Toolkit for the Regulation of the Digital Economy (analytical review)." International Organisations Research Journal 16, no. 3 (2021): 256–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-12.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The European Union (EU) is trying to increase its influence on the international regulation of the digital economy through domestic and foreign policy initiatives. The EU’s digital strategy, adopted in 2020, envisages measures to further consolidate the single digital market and promote EU standards and regulation internationally. The main goal of the strategy is to ensure the EU’s digital sovereignty. This objective is at the core of policy measures in three priority areas: the elimination of remaining barriers in the internal market, the development of advanced technologies, and the safeguarding of the rights, freedoms and development of democracy in Europe. These three strategic priorities determine sectoral policies: 5/6G development, high performing computers, regulation of digital markets and platforms, cybersecurity, and data governance. The EU uses regulatory, economic, institutional, networking, and foreign policy instruments and mechanisms to achieve its objectives in specific policy areas. Regulation includes further raising standards for personal data protection and consumer rights, control over digital platforms, laying down a legal framework for the development of cutting-edge technologies, attracting investments, and allocating the EU’s own resources to potentially occupy niches in international markets in the future, all of which will strengthen the EU’s claim to leadership in regulating the digital economy and ensure its digital sovereignty. Foreign policy mechanisms are an important part of the toolkit and include a developed European diplomacy, established ties through the Neighbourhood Policy, and the conditionality of development aid.
20
Kovalenko, Al. "Technological giants on digital markets as a result of a regulator failure." Journal of Modern Competition 14, no. 80 (2020): 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.37791/1993-7598-2020-14-4-5-24.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article discusses the main problems of antitrust regulation of multilateral digital platforms. The problems of defining the boundaries of product markets on which multilateral platforms operate, including the problems of analyzing competition in derivative markets, other stages of determining the dominant position of a digital platform and its market power are disclosed. In the context of the latest news related to the proposals of the Subcommittee of the US Congress on toughening antitrust regulation of digital giants (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple), the possibilities of using such proposals in the Russian practice of antitrust regulation are considered. The author identifies the methodological problems that arise in the context of strengthening the market power of digital platforms, and also reveals the author’s approach to solving these problems.
21
Goanta, Catalina, and Jerry Spanakis. "Discussing The Legitimacy of Digital Market Surveillance." Stanford Journal of Computational Antitrust, no. 2 (April 25, 2022): 44–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.51868/12.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Legal compliance is increasingly becoming digital, and that is a fact. In shaping its digital future, in the past years, the European Union has been proposing one legal reform after another, such as the Digital Services Act package or the AI Act. A common thread in these developments is the policy reflection on not only how to update or make new rules for digital markets but also how to enforce them effectively. This has already been reflected in earlier instruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation or the Digital Market Surveillance Regulation. Although necessary for checking legal compliance, resulting digital enforcement practices need fast innovations from an interdisciplinary scientific space, (e.g., law/computer science/behavioral sciences) which is in its infancy. The pursuit of developing “tools” that can monitor market actors or detect harmful behaviors requires, at a minimum, clear legal interpretations, the translation of these interpretations into computer science tasks, and the ranking of harms affecting consumer behavior. This gap and the surrounding pace at which demands for filling it increases, create some interesting questions relating to the ethical and legitimacy limits of digital market surveillance. In this position paper, we firstly explore definitional frameworks for surveillance on digital markets and digital enforcement and subsequently propose a practical taxonomy for the types of digital compliance activities which may be undertaken by designated authorities in the European Union as a result of recent enforcement regulation, particularly in relation to consumer protection and competition authorities. In this section, we look at the new CPC Regulation and address some of the issues relating to its application to the digital economy. In the third section, we critically reflect upon the dangers of privatizing legal enforcement and briefly address some potential solutions. The fourth section concludes.
22
Goanta, Catalina, and Jerry Spanakis. "Discussing The Legitimacy of Digital Market Surveillance." Stanford Journal of Computational Antitrust, no. 2 (April 25, 2022): 44–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.51868/12.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Legal compliance is increasingly becoming digital, and that is a fact. In shaping its digital future, in the past years, the European Union has been proposing one legal reform after another, such as the Digital Services Act package or the AI Act. A common thread in these developments is the policy reflection on not only how to update or make new rules for digital markets but also how to enforce them effectively. This has already been reflected in earlier instruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation or the Digital Market Surveillance Regulation. Although necessary for checking legal compliance, resulting digital enforcement practices need fast innovations from an interdisciplinary scientific space, (e.g., law/computer science/behavioral sciences) which is in its infancy. The pursuit of developing “tools” that can monitor market actors or detect harmful behaviors requires, at a minimum, clear legal interpretations, the translation of these interpretations into computer science tasks, and the ranking of harms affecting consumer behavior. This gap and the surrounding pace at which demands for filling it increases, create some interesting questions relating to the ethical and legitimacy limits of digital market surveillance. In this position paper, we firstly explore definitional frameworks for surveillance on digital markets and digital enforcement and subsequently propose a practical taxonomy for the types of digital compliance activities which may be undertaken by designated authorities in the European Union as a result of recent enforcement regulation, particularly in relation to consumer protection and competition authorities. In this section, we look at the new CPC Regulation and address some of the issues relating to its application to the digital economy. In the third section, we critically reflect upon the dangers of privatizing legal enforcement and briefly address some potential solutions. The fourth section concludes.
23
Egorova, Maria A. "Features of exercising control over economic concentration: the experience of Russia, France and USA." RUDN Journal of Law 25, no. 3 (2021): 654–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-3-654-672.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The relevance of the topic is due to the comprehensive development of digital technologies and the need for timely legal regulation of new phenomena of public life. Digitalization is not only rapidly penetrating all sectors of the economy, but is a trigger for the creation of qualitatively new economic relations. The digital transformation of the economy and markets, in addition to objective advantages, also carries negative consequences. Negative manifestations are possible in the monopolization of commodity markets. Antitrust laws are changing in line with the expansion of digital markets. The article identifies the main obstacles to regulating monopolies in the digital economy. The practice of antimonopoly regulation of digital platforms is considered. The tasks of adopting the fifth antimonopoly package as expanding the scope of the Federal Law On Protection of Competition are outlined. In addition, the concept of economic concentration is analyzed, as well as signs of restricting competition when considering transactions in its conditions. Particular attention is paid to differences in approaches to regulating the digital market in Russia, France and USA. A comparative analysis of the antimonopoly legislation of Russia, France and USA, types of economic concentration, regulations for control over concentrations at the level of different jurisdictions has been carried out. The phases of control over economic concentration, the powers of the antimonopoly authorities, the assessment of criminal encroachments on competition are considered in detail.
24
Csurgai-Horváth, Gergely. "Regulating Algorithmic Bias as a Key Element of Digital Market Regulation." World Competition 47, Issue 2 (2024): 193–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/woco2024015.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This paper addresses the rules applicable to algorithmic bias taking the form of self-favouring by hybrid digital platforms in the EU. In this paper, it is argued that the recently introduced prohibition of self-favouring by digital platforms should not apply across the board in the same manner. It may be necessary to consider the nature of the underlying products or services, the business models, and the monetization strategies of digital platforms. Differences in these aspects may alter their ability and incentives to engage in self-favouring potentially leading to foreclosing rivals and harming consumers. This suggests that the approach put forward by section 19a of the German Competition Act (GWB) may be better from an error-cost perspective than that of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Section 19a of the GWB grants more discretion to enforcers and allows for a broader justification of the impugned conduct. In the context of the DMA, some sort of balancing exercise seems to be possible only if the European Commission makes extensive use of the possibility to further specify the prohibition of self-favouring contained in Article 6(5) of the DMA in light of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality. Finally, the paper touches upon the potential disproportionate burden, legal fragmentation, and legal uncertainty across the EU resulting from the interplay between EU competition law, the DMA, and national laws tackling similar self-favouring practices.
25
Vukolov, V. L. "FEATURES OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LABOR MARKET AND IN THE FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS." Social & labor researches 51, no. 2 (2023): 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.34022/2658-3712-2023-51-2-8-15.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The proposed article substantiates the legal framework and features of regulating the use of digital information technologies in the processes of organizing and developing the labor market and the system of labor relations. The object of the research is the emerging and developing spheres of the labor market and labor relations in the Russian Federation. The subject is the legal regulation of the use of digital technologies in this area. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of the legal regulation of the digital technologies used in the development of the labor market and labor relations.
26
Shvorak, L., and Y. Humeniuk. "THE DIGITAL SERVICES MARKET AT THE CORE OF EU REGULATORY POLICY." Economic scope, no. 193 (October 17, 2024): 138–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.30838/ep.193.138-143.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The purpose of the study is to analyze changes in EU regulatory policy with an emphasis on the regulation of digital markets, in particular digital services markets, which contribute to ensuring the strategic autonomy of the integration association without loss for the competitiveness of European manufacturers. The relevance of digital trade regulation is determined by a number of legislative acts. Most digital companies in the EU market are gatekeepers, controlling a significant share of US imports of computer and information services into the EU. Trade restrictions, which are regulated by the above-mentioned institutional acts, are aimed at promoting the development of European companies in the field of IT, but there is a risk that related sectors that are undergoing digital transformation may suffer from such protectionist instruments due to the increase in the price of provided data and digital services. An important aspect of modern international competition is digital ecosystems and platforms. Strict regulation of ecosystems and platforms will quickly become obsolete, may lead to a slowdown in the development of digital markets and a deterioration in the quality of services for users. The European Commission faces the challenge of creating favourable conditions for the development of European digital ecosystems and platforms, taking into account the development of a regulatory environment that would take into account the level of maturity of digital markets, and also offer counteractions to such risks as abuse of a dominant position, "lock-in" of technologies, and monopolization of data. The difficulty lies in the lack of a unified approach to defining the economic component of digital markets and digital platforms. Existing definitions in the regulations of individual EU member states do not always take into account the specifics of the economic criteria of digital platforms, for example, the presence of strong network effects or cross-subsidization of services. Otherwise, the definition may affect business entities that are not digital platforms as such, but are considered intermediaries between several persons using electronic means of interaction. The new regulation of digital services markets and digital platforms is, among other things, also aimed at consumers. Thus, the Digital Services Act (DSA) contains provisions on consumer protection. The update of the current legislation is aimed at clarifying the liability regime for digital intermediaries operating in the European Union, as well as strengthening control and supervision over compliance with consumer law requirements. The new provisions impose obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content.
27
КОНОВАЛОВА, М. Е., and В. А. ЛИТОВЧЕНКО. "INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES OF THE STOCK MARKET FUNCTIONING." Экономика и предпринимательство, no. 11(160) (December 21, 2023): 39–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.34925/eip.2023.160.11.004.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
В статье рассмотрены базовые закономерности и особенности институционального регулирования фондового рынка. Показано, что эффективность действующих институтов, регламентирующих инвестиционное поведение профучастников рынка ценных бумаг, розничных инвесторов и других игроков фондового рынка определяет стратегию развития российского финансового рынка. В условиях формирования цифровой парадигмы социально-экономического развития особое значение приобретает разработка и реализация нормативных актов, регулирующих инвестиционный процесс на финансовом рынке с учетом новых цифровых инструментов. The article discusses the basic patterns and features of the institutional regulation of the stock market. It is shown that the effectiveness of existing institutions regulating the investment behavior of professional participants in the securities market, retail investors and other stock market players determines the development strategy of the Russian financial market. In the context of the formation of the digital paradigm of socio-economic development, the development and implementation of regulations regulating the investment process in the financial market, taking into account new digital tools, is of particular importance.
28
Maume, Philipp, and Finn Kesper. "The EU DLT Pilot Regime for Digital Assets [pre-publication]." European Company Law 20, Issue 6 (2023): 118–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/eucl2023039.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
On 23 March 2023, the DLT-Pilot-Regime came into force. It provides market operators the opportunity to offer blockchain-/DLT-based securities trading subject to full EU financial markets regulation. Although this piece of legislation has not attracted as much attention as the Regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR), the impact of the DLT-Pilot might be signification. In this article, we outline how the EU legislators have identified the shortcomings of current EU market regulation when applied to DLT-based trading, and addressed them one by one. If successful, the DLT-Pilot could become a ‘test kitchen’ for the development of DLT-based securities and crypto-asset trading in the EU. distributed ledger technology, DLT Pilot, financial instrument, MiCAR, regulatory sandbox, settlement system, multilateral trading facility
29
Aben, Janika, and Paula Etti. "Fintech regulation in the European Union: trends and blurred lines." Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals, no. 131 (September 22, 2022): 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2022.131.2.95/en.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Digitalisation, innovative financial services technologies and new business models hope for borderless markets. Financial technology (Fintech) is looking to be another player in this market. In order to increase the integrity of the EU common market and the size of its capital market, new legislative initiatives have been designed to level the playing field for all participants and to rethink the traditional concepts of capital flows and instruments and the risks associated with opening the capital market up to new participants. Financial services like crowdfunding platforms are transforming the services concept, while the risks associated with the digital operations of financial services place the entire digital finance world on the same level. In this context, this paper examines the EU's efforts to create a seamless legal environment.
30
Tarkhova, Ksenia V., Vladislav I. Alifirov, and Olga N. Gorokhova. "The Evolution of Antitrust Regulation in Russia in Digital Era." Digital Law Journal 1, no. 4 (2020): 38–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2020-1-4-38-55.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article includes a comprehensive analysis of changes that have been taking place in Russian antitrust enforcement in response to the digitalization of the economy. Digitalization has led to increase of the role of information and digital platforms in day-to-day business activities of the market players. Digitalization vanished geographical boundaries of the digital markets and modified market structures in general. Innovative technologies, big data, and intellectual property have become the key drivers of economic growth. The authors analyze new violations of antimonopoly legislation in the digital era (in particular collusive tendering using auction robots), the anticompetitive effects resulting from the use of pricing algorithms, and the first approaches of the antitrust authority to regulations of the algorithmic pricing. In addition, within the framework of this article, the first legal positions of the antitrust authority regarding the use of pricing algorithms, as well as the new approaches of the regulator to the analysis of digital markets in merger control are considered, taking into account such factors as network effects, big data and technologies. Moreover, the authors analyze the first practice of using the technology transfer as a remedy in merger control by the antitrust authority to mitigate anti-competitive effects of the transactions planned in the Russian market. Finally, the authors conduct an overview of the new legal provisions governing the mandatory pre-installation of applications by Russian developers, and also describe the background for this initiative. When considering the above topics, the authors deeply analyze the relevant Russian and foreign legislation, draft laws, and the law enforcement practice of the Federal Antimonopoly Service. New approaches of the regulator to the analysis of digital markets in the framework of antitrust investigations and merger control, as well as automation of the processes of detecting antitrust violations, demand more attention from market players. Companies are encouraged to take these trends into account in their business activities, reflect them in antitrust compliance programs, as well as implement additional measures to prevent potential antitrust violations in digital markets, in particular, committed with the use of pricing algorithms.
31
Isaev, M. N. "Legal Regulation Development of Innovative Entrepreneurship and Innovative Markets." Information and Innovations 16, no. 4 (2022): 37–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.31432/1994-2443-2021-16-4-37-45.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article considers the directions of development of legal regulation of innovative entrepreneurship and innovative markets in the digital age. World practice shows that there is a distortion of competition in digital markets, prerequisites for some form of monopolization of markets arise. This damages producers, consumers, and the country as a whole. Therefore, as shown in the article, the state can develop antimonopoly regulation in a number of directions, depending on the specifics of the market.
32
Kachalin, Vladimir V. "Антимонопольное регулирование: приоритеты в меняющемся мире". Economic Strategies 144, № 2 (182) (2022): 32–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.33917/es-2.182.2022.32-38.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article focuses on changes in global markets induced by digitalization of economy that caused new challenges to antimonopoly regulation. In this context, the author considers digital platforms and use of algorithmic pricing by economic entities. The author proposes to delineate between different types of platforms and their classification in platforms — exchanges or trade spots and multisided markets and to assess the impact of both types on competition. The article also considers the use of digital algorithms by entities as a factor of concerted conduct and implicit collusion among the market participants. In this context, the author attempts to assess the influence of humans and algorithms on sustainability of implicit collusion. Both problems are considered in the context of global scale of entities. It limits possibilities of law enforcement against their monopolistic conduct by national competition authorities, as well as national sovereignty when faced with global corporations. In conclusion, the author stresses the necessity of search of new means of countering monopolization in digital markets.
33
Levakov, Pavel A., and Natalia S. Pavlova. "Big data as a source of market power of digital platforms." Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost, no. 1 (February 15, 2024): 74–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.31857/s0869049924010066.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Big data is widely used by digital platforms in multi-sided markets, which are often considered monopolistic. Big data is analyzed as a potential source of market power of digital platforms, and its characteristics as an economic resource are considered. Arguments for classifying certain categories of big data (for example, historical data) as club goods are specified. The use of big data by digital platforms has already become the object of antitrust proceedings. Based on the analysis of those cases, as well as the review of scientific literature, the relationship between the market power of digital platforms and their use of big data is examined. Firstly, big data can be used by platforms while implementing the strategy of price discrimination. Secondly, the usage of big data creates barriers to entry for new platforms, which are caused by the lack of access to data and increased spending on hardware, software and hiring personnel. Finally, big data can be used by digital platforms to exert market power on adjacent markets and create discriminatory conditions. Based on this research, recommendations for antimonopoly regulation of digital platforms in Russia are provided. Several structural alternatives to antimonopoly regulation of big data are considered: the requirements for anonymized big data disclosure; the creation of a big data market; the partial restrictions on generating and using big data in certain ways (similar to the new regulation in the EU).
34
ODINTSOV, S. V., and O. I. ZYRYANOVA. "TOKENS AND DECENTRALIZED FINANCE: LEGAL REGULATION SPECIFICITY IN THE SWISS CONFEDERATION." Economic Problems and Legal Practice 19, no. 3 (2023): 59–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.33693/2541-8025-2023-19-3-59-67.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Digital technologies have long been an integral part of economic and social relations. For example, it’s difficult to imagine modern society without various alternative means of payment. The widespread distribution of tokens and the development of cryptocurrency markets have significantly influenced the further development of the economy and law. Many loyal jurisdictions for the development of crypto business, such as the Swiss Confederation, in an effort to gain influence on the crypto asset market, adapt legislation regarding the regulatory regulation of digital (virtual) assets. The purpose of the study is to consider the current trends in the legal regulation of tokens in Switzerland under the influence of global trends in the crypto market, taking into account classification approaches. As a result of the conducted research, it became obvious that Switzerland, as the so-called «European crypto valley», seeks to provide a solid legal basis for the effective use of distributed registry technology and the widespread use of crypto assets. However, despite the constant development of legislation in terms of regulating the circulation of crypto assets and ensuring law enforcement practice in this area, the Swiss Confederation is currently still in the process of forming a holistic legal regulation of asset tokenization, since the adopted regulations regulate only certain aspects of the circulation of crypto assets and ICO.
35
Kurdin, A. A. "Regulation of Digital Ecosystems within the Framework of Compe-tition Policy: Legal and Economic Approach." Scientific Research of Faculty of Economics. Electronic Journal 13, no. 4 (2022): 7–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.38050/2078-3809-2021-13-4-7-20.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Digital transformation of markets and industries is one of the most difficult challenges for the modern competition policy. The transformation is closely connected to the formation of ecosystems and the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). The authors of the article summarize main issues raised in the process of market behavior qualification and market structure assessment for AI inten-sive companies leading digital ecosystems. These issues include enhanced market concentration, risks of price discrimination and algorithmic collusion. One of the specific challenges in that sphere is the dependence of AI efficiency on big-data-based machine learning. This feature causes the in-crease in market concentration, strengthens the positions of market leaders, and potentially weakens the competitive environment. Antitrust bodies should improve their own digital competences and an-alytical capacities to prevent the loss of control over the market, as well as the elimination of AI benefits.
36
Popov, N. V. "Evolution of Tariff Government Regulation in Energy and Communal Markets on the Basis of Smart Regulation System." Administrative Consulting, no. 6 (August 24, 2021): 148–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-6-148-157.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The Aim. Analysis of effects according to digital pricing system advent in energy and communal sphere in Russia as a part of new industrial revolution.Purpose of a research. Review of a current world trends on energy markets, determination of ways and instruments for tariff regulation digital development on the energy and communal markets, definition of possible results from complex digitalization of tariff regulation system.Methodology of a research. During research of this article were widely applied instruments of complex theoretical analysis, cause-effect relations were tested between theoretical hypothesis and practical realization of digital tariff regulation models.Result of a research. By the author were written and systematic defined concept of pricing digitalization system on the Russian energy and communal markets according to analysis of main world trends in this economic sphere. The term of digital platform of tariff regulation was developed.Output. Digitalization of tariff regulation could develop premises for deregulation of energy and communal spheres in Russia enable the competence development and lower the entrance barriers for new market players what can lead to higher innovation and investment level recruited in these important markets.
37
Frunzeti, Teodor, and Alexandru-Cosmin Dumitru. "Harmonizing Virtual Currency Use in the EU: The Evolution and Impact of MiCA Regulation." Land Forces Academy Review 29, no. 2 (2024): 141–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/raft-2024-0015.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract This article analyses the regulatory framework for virtual currencies in the European Union, tracing the development from several national laws to the comprehensive Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) regulation. At first, EU member states had different methods for regulating virtual currencies, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape that posed difficulties for market integrity, consumer protection, and cross-border transactions. This article covers the many regulatory responses before MiCA, explores the reasons for regulatory harmonization, and delves into the legislative process that resulted in the creation and proposal of MiCA. We examine how MiCA tackles the deficiencies of past regulations and its impact on standardizing virtual currency processes throughout the EU. MiCA's importance rests in its ability to provide a cohesive legal structure that harmonizes innovation with the requirements of financial stability and consumer safeguarding. This article explores how MiCA will influence member states' laws and the virtual currency market, providing insight into the future of EU financial regulation in the digital era.
38
Bakhtiyar, Annisa Carolina, Sinta Dewi Rosadi, and Tri Handayani. "JURIDICAL STUDIES OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF DIGITAL RUPIAH IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERNIZING FINANCIAL MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE." Jurnal Poros Hukum Padjadjaran 5, no. 1 (2023): 53–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.23920/jphp.v5i1.1423.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The rise of exchange rates other than the official state currency in the digital world raises its own problems. The development of the digital economy that is currently developing is supported by digital economic infrastructure, one of which is the official state medium of exchange. Therefore, this is a demand for the public's need for official state exchange instruments that can apply in the digital world. This was then answered by Bank Indonesia through the concept of Digital Rupiah and its derivatives in various Bank Indonesia Regulations. However, there are problems regarding the Digital Rupiah policy and the implementation of secure use of the Digital Rupiah sistem. This research was conducted using a normative juridical method, and the writing stage was carried out through a literature search which was carried out by examining secondary data including primary legal materials, literature, articles, opinions and teachings of experts and their implementation in laws and regulations. Based on the discussion, it can be concluded that policies related to Digital Rupiah as a modernization of financial market infrastructure are still contained in various regulations, including Law Number 4 of 2023, Bank Indonesia Regulation Number 23/11/PBI/2021, and Bank Indonesia Regulation Number 23/10 /PBI/2021. Digital Rupiah security arrangements in Indonesia refer to Bank for International Settlements (BIS) guidelines and include secure technology infrastructure, cloud-based cybersecurity services, risk management and compliance sistems, as well as application and infrastructure security integration through DevSecOps. Reliability certificates are regulated in Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019.
39
Zainutdinova, Elizaveta. "Models of Legal Regulation of Digital Rights and Digital Currency Turnover." Legal Issues in the Digital Age 4, no. 1 (2023): 93–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2023.1.93.122.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Currently all countries form or are in process of forming rules of law regulating turnover of new digital objects of rights that are called differently as digital rights, tokens, digital assets, digital currency, and cryptocurrency. The difference in wording does not allow to develop common international approaches to the cross-border turnover of such new objects of rights. States are only looking for ways to regulate relations in the digital economy. To find optimal solutions, a comparative legal research is needed to evaluate models of regulation and find effective ways and means of response to the modern challenges. Aim of the research is to analyze models of legal regulation of the turnover of digital rights and digital currency and offer model of regulation that allow such objects of rights to be fully included in the Russian civil turnover. The following tasks are being solved: choice of jurisdictions and analysis of legal norms that regulate turnover in the field; formulation of regulative models of the turnover of digital rights and digital currency based on legislation, doctrine and law enforcement; study of measures and means of regulation used in various states; analysis of different points of researchers on regulation of relations in the digital economy in Russia and abroad; proposal to the legislator of measures and means of regulation, based on the chosen regulative model of the turnover of digital rights and digital currency. Such methods as comparative legal, formal legal, legal modeling methods were used to compare experience of various jurisdictions and formulate regulative models in need. Also general methods of synthesis, analysis, induction, deduction, comparison, analogy, etc. were used. The study showed that the approaches used in the legal regulation in the field differ both in terms of legal norms and in creation of institutions and conditions for functioning digital market. Models of the corresponding legal regulation also differ. States use both prohibitive model of turnover regulation (prohibition of their issuance and turnover), partially prohibitive (restrictions on the turnover of digital rights and digital currency), partially permissive (admission of turnover of digital rights and digital currency, subject to conditions — licensing, regulatory sandboxes, etc.) and permissive model (allowing the turnover of digital rights and digital currency to all market participants, subject to minimum requirements). Terms like cryptocurrency, tokens, crypto assets, digital assets are more popular abroad, while in Russia the concepts of digital rights and digital currency are used to refer to similar legal phenomena. It would be necessary to compare categories under consideration for the possibility of their use in supranational regulation, and cross-border relations, in order to be able to speak with representatives of other jurisdictions in the same language. From the foreign experience, attention of legislator should be drawn to the need and possibility of licensing in relation to participants in the digital market, as well as to the success of regulatory sandboxes in this area, for example in Britain. At the same time, when establishing law enforcement practice in Russia in the field, especially with participation of consumers, experience in US, Britain, Australia as well as the legal regulation of the crypto industry in Japan shall be considered.
40
Fletcher, Amelia. "International pro-competition regulation of digital platforms: healthy experimentation or dangerous fragmentation?" Oxford Review of Economic Policy 39, no. 1 (2023): 12–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac047.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract The increasing dominance of a small number of ‘big tech’ companies, across a range of critical online markets, has led to growing calls for regulation to promote more competition, and to ensure that market power is not exploited unfairly. New regulatory regimes to this end are now under development in a variety of jurisdictions. While the new German and EU regulatory regimes are the most advanced, there are detailed proposals under discussion in the UK, US, and China, while in South Korea new regulations have been introduced in relation to the specific area of app stores. This article discusses several questions arising in this context. What problem is pro-competition digital platform regulation trying to solve? Why regulation and not competition law? What are the design challenges involved in developing such regulation? What are the risks arising from diverging regulatory approaches to these global issues and how much these risks be mitigated? And what role can trade policy play?
41
Бойко, Константин. "NFT to protect Digital Art." Law & Digital Technologies 3, no. 1 (2023): 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.18254/s278229070026281-5.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has led to considerable changes in the creative industries markets associated with the emergence of fundamentally new opportunities for the transfer and protection of intellectual property rights. The explosive growth of the NFT market has led to close attention of both regulators and market participants to the problems of legal regulation of the turnover of these digital assets. The lack of a legal definition gives rise to problems related to the delimitation of NFTs from other digital assets named in the legislation. This article examines the legal nature of NFTs, distinguishes them from securities, digital rights, digital financial assets, digital currencies and utilitarian digital rights. The author analyses the draft law on NFT and draws conclusions about the prospects for legal regulation with special emphasis on the legal problems of acquiring NFTs. Based on the study, the author concludes that it is possible to classify NFT as "other property" and that it is necessary to develop a special legal regime.
42
Josipović, Tatjana. "Role of Private Law for Europe’s Digital Future." Central European Journal of Comparative Law 3, no. 2 (2022): 27–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.47078/2022.2.27-53.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The digital transformation of the EU single market actualizes numerous issues regarding the regulation of private law relations in the digital market. The key issue is whether the digital transformation requires a complex reform of the existing rules brought by the European legislator to provide for individual rights in various private law relations in the offline market (e.g., consumer contracts, labor contracts, and contracts on the provision of services in individual economic sectors), and if that is the case, how this reform must be implemented. An answer to this question mostly depends on whether, by the existing legal instruments in the digital market, namely efficient protection and enforcement of fundamental rights, EU market freedoms and individual rights can be ensured in the same way they are protected in the offline market. This paper deals with the changes in the regulation of EU private law relations caused by the establishment of the Digital Single Market. The main aim is to consider the perspectives of the EU private law in the digital transition, and whether a different approach to the regulation of private law relations in the digital market is necessary.
43
JUNHUA, WEI. "Studies Into the Potential Replacement of Swift with Digital Currency: Technology, Regulation, and the Market." Journal of Artificial Intelligence General science (JAIGS) ISSN:3006-4023 2, no. 1 (2024): 1–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.60087/jaigs.v2i1.p320.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
With the rapid development of digital currency and blockchain technology, digital currency has attracted widespread attention as a new payment method. As a traditional cross-border payment and settlement method, SWIFT has significant advantages in its market position and technical capabilities. However, as a new payment method, digital currency has the advantages of speed, low cost, and no geographical restrictions, so it may become a substitute for SWIFT. This paper aims to study the possibility of a digital currency replacing SWIFT, focusing on the challenges and opportunities of digital currency in terms of technology, regulation, and market. In terms of technology, this paper would analyze the advantages and disadvantages of digital currency and blockchain technology and explore the technical application of digital currency in cross-border payment and settlement. In addition, this paper would also analyze technical issues, such as the security and scalability of digital currency, and propose corresponding solutions. In terms of regulation, this paper would analyze the regulatory framework and compliance requirements of digital currencies and the status and role of digital currencies in the international financial regulatory system. This paper would also explore the regulatory and compliance issues of digital currency and propose suggestions and solutions for digital currency regulation. In terms of market, this paper would analyze the competitiveness and application potential of digital currency in the international trade and cross-border payment markets, as well as the market prospect and business model of digital currency. In addition, this paper would also analyze the advantages and disadvantages of digital currency and traditional payment methods, as well as the challenges of digital currency in marketing and application. Through the analysis and discussion of technology, regulation, and the market, this paper aims to provide a theoretical and practical basis for digital currency to replace SWIFT and a reference for relevant policy formulation and practice. This paper provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis and research on the possibility of a digital currency replacing SWIFT, covering technical, regulatory, and market issues. The structure of the thesis is clear, the logic is rigorous, the argument is clear, and it has innovation and practical value. This paper has important theoretical and practical significance in the continuous development and application of digital currency and blockchain technology. It has specific references and inspiration for research and practice in related fields.
44
Sadovaya, E. "Labor Market in the Digital Economy – Prospects for Regulation." World Economy and International Relations 66, no. 10 (2022): 102–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-10-102-111.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article examines the social problems that arise due to the lack of legal mechanisms for regulating social and labor relations in a digitalizing labor market. The author emphasizes that the main result of the formation of the digital economy was the organizational restructuring of the labor market. The consequence of this is the transformation of traditional enterprises that hire staff on the terms of an employment contract into crowd-working platforms that “serve” an unlimited number of employers and provide them with the “services” of workers for the implementation of certain technological operations. The resulting relations are increasingly fragmented and atomized in comparison with the traditional social and labor relations. The legal form of exercising the employees’ right to work is changing – from hired labor into self-employment. As a result of the ongoing transformations, labor relations are deprived of a social component based on the joint responsibility of employers and employees for the social well-being of the latter. Thus, the main legal and at the same time socioeconomic problem in the context of digitalization of the labor market is the “disappearance” (in the legal sense) of the subject that is responsible for the payment of insurance social contributions of digital (platform) workers. This is one of the main social challenges of the digital economy: it is becoming more difficult to fill social funds in the same volumes, to provide insurance for the employed against major social risks, which ultimately threatens the implementation of the social function of the state. The author emphasizes that the deterioration of the social situation is by no means due to the legal or technological complexity of creating effective mechanisms for regulating the labor market in the context of digitalization, it is an objective phenomenon. The crisis that has developed in the world economy prevents the resolution of legal conflicts arising in the field of employment. The problems of regulation of labor relations and the formation of mechanisms for the implementation of social policy in the context of a digitalizing labor market must be perceived only as separate “mosaic pieces” in a single canvas of social problems of modern society in the period of its transformation. When solving this problem, we can talk about choosing from two possible options: either about the return of relations in the sphere of labor to the field of social relations in the legal sense, or about recreating the state system of social protection of the population, taking into account the possibilities of its customization of the functions of public administration, which are given by the universal digitalization.
45
Gagarina, Irina, and Irina Knyazeva. "German state competition policy: Responses to the challenges of digitalization of the economy, lessons for Russia." St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies 38, no. 4 (2022): 551–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu05.2022.404.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article examines the experience of the German competition authority and the limits of the intervention of the German state and the competition policy developed by it in the digital economy. Particular attention is paid to the methodological approaches of the German regulator to assessing the dominant position of companies in digital markets, problems arising in their practical application, assessing the impact of the digital agenda on markets and competition. Current cases reflecting the multidimensional assessment of market power in digital markets are presented. The opinion of the German antimonopoly regulator is systematized, including the development of a set of measures aimed at reducing negative effects in the form of abuse of market power and the ability to have a negative impact on the market from online platforms. The basic rules of the regulatory doctrine adopted in 2021–2022 by the Economic Commission for Europe within the framework of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) are briefly presented. Particular attention is paid to the description of the concept of “intermediary power” as a special tool for assessing the market power of online platforms and the implementation of antimonopoly control and regulation of their behavior based on the regulatory concept of “gatekeeper”. The results of the research, based on new original ideas and meaningful content, can be integrated into the discourse of modern science as a vector conceptual approaches to the study of digital markets, as well as applied in the direct practice of antimonopoly regulation in the Russian Federation.
46
ПОЛТАРЫХИН А.Л., ПОЛТАРЫХИН А. Л., ШЕЛКОВНИКОВ С. А. ШЕЛКОВНИКОВ С.А., ЖУРАВЛЕВ П. В. ЖУРАВЛЕВ П.В., ПИЩЕРКОВА Е. А. ПИЩЕРКОВА Е.А., and ВАТОЛИН А. Е. ВАТОЛИН А.Е. "MEASURES TO COUNTER UNFAIR COMPETITION IN THE DIGITAL PLATFORM MARKET." Экономика и предпринимательство, no. 4(165) (June 25, 2024): 1205–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.34925/eip.2024.165.4.242.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
В статье рассматриваются мероприятия по противодействию недобросовестной конкуренции на рынке цифровых платформ. Цифровые рынки, являясь катализатором развития экономических процессов страны, нуждаются в четком и структурированном регулировании. Однако, в настоящий момент цифровые рынки в России требуют, как актуализации правового регулирования, так и формирования культуры здоровой конкуренции среди хозяйствующих субъектов, функционирующих на нем. Цифровые рынки, в частности цифровые платформы, в России находятся на этапе развития, и вопрос недобросовестной конкуренции в цифровом пространстве является особо острым, что обуславливает нахождение способов и методов борьбы с ней. The article discusses measures to counter unfair competition in the digital platform market. Digital markets, being a catalyst for the development of the country's economic processes, need clear and structured regulation. However, at the moment, digital markets in Russia require both the updating of legal regulation and the formation of a culture of healthy competition among business entities operating on it. Digital markets, in particular digital platforms, are at a stage of development in Russia, and the issue of unfair competition in the digital space is particularly acute, which leads to the finding of ways and methods to combat it.
47
Maslov, A. О. "Approaches to Antitrust Regulation of Entrepreneurial Activities of Digital Platform Owners (Using the Example of Investigations Against Amazon)." Russian competition law and economy, no. 4 (December 21, 2023): 32–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.47361/2542-0259-2023-4-36-32-43.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Competition authorities around many jurisdictions are taking steps to develop legal approaches to antitrust analysis of economic activities of digital platforms owners. However, when applying these approaches the particular impact is not always effective and leads to positive effects for the competition law enforcement on the relevant commodity markets.The article provides a comprehensive analysis of legal framework of antitrust regulators in some jurisdictions during investigations against transaction digital platform owner called Amazon based on abuse of a dominant position on the relevant commodity markets, as well as the conclusion of anticompetitive agreements.Legal approaches in competition law enforcement for determining market power and product and geographic boundaries of the commodity market where the owner of the digital transaction platform operates are also explored.The article states that the main criteria of the market power of digital transaction platform owner is still a volume of market share.The Article deals with issue of legal interpretation of digital platform owner particular actions on product market from competition law points of view and at the same time evaluates the effectiveness level of remedies have been taken by competition authorities in some jurisdictions.
48
Denemark, Jaroslav. "Strengthening the European Union by Regulating the Digital Single Market." AUC IURIDICA 69, no. 2 (2023): 107–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.18.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Polarization of the society is nowadays easier than ever due to the strong influence of social media. Opaque algorithms personalize news feed of users through massive data processing and thus creating effects that are fueling extremization of opinions. Negative effects of social media can be used by third parties to influence society to achieve their goals, however antidemocratic. Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act aim to regulate Digital Single Market through fair competition and consumer protection regulation. This regulation can have significant impact on the democratic deficit of the European Union as it has potential to eradicate analyzed negative effects of social media on the polarization of society.
49
Panfilov, P. O. "Regulation of Online Platforms in the EU Digital Single Market: Opportunities for the EAEU." Lex Russica 76, no. 2 (2023): 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2023.195.2.091-100.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The paper analyzes the formation and development of the EU Digital Single Market, as well as the specifics of online platforms regulation in the EU, taking into account the judicial practice formed by the EU Court. It is concluded that EU regulatory legal acts do not always provide sufficient regulation from the point of view of harmonization of national rules in the field of the digital market. In this regard, a special role is assigned to the EU Court of Justice in interpreting EU regulatory legal acts and elimination of gaps in the law. The author concludes that the European Commission on the Digital Single Market quite often uses the message format to broadcast its decisions, which indicates that it does not have executive powers at the EU level. The same is true for the EEC, which operates at the EAEU level. The EU legal acts regulating the activities of online platforms and the digital market as a whole are more detailed, unlike those legal acts that operate in the EAEU and are essentially programmatic, denoting topical issues and common vectors of development. The Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union creates a regulatory legal framework for the implementation of the program to create a Digital Single Market of the EAEU. In this regard, the EAEU should increase the intensity of interaction within the legal framework of the common market of goods, services, capital and labor, create universal concepts and models based on the experience of the E, in particular, the concept of «know your business client». It is necessary to take into account the specifics of the EAEU region increasing the role of the EAEU Court in the formation of the general legal model of the functioning of the Digital Single Market. Given the new reality of political and economic relations, the creation and development of the EAEU Digital Single Market is an important point for ensuring digital and economic sovereignty.
50
Pankrukhina, A. M. "PROBLEMS OF REGULATION OF THE CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET IN RUSSIA AND THE WORLD." Globus: economy sciences 7, no. 3(43) (2021): 37–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.52013/2713-3052-43-3-6.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The appearance of cryptocurrency has become a high-profile event, around which disputes still persist. Some see it as a direct threat to the security of national economy, some as a long-awaited triumph of market principles of self-regulation. The necessity, expediency and the most effective model of regulating the cryptocurrency market are burning issues. The relevance of these issues in the context of Russian reality is proved at least by the fact that Russia is one of the leading countries in the use of digital currency, and the number of crypto wallets opened by Russians has exceeded 8 million. The aim of this article is to review the currently existing opinions and accumulated experience in solving the problem of regulating the digital currency market.