Amazon gets uk antitrust scrutiny data7/21/2023 We use the term ‘algorithm’ to include simpler sets of rules as well as more advanced machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) code. IntroductionĪlgorithms are sequences of instructions to perform a computation or solve a problem. Even in relatively well-researched areas, such as algorithmic collusion, there is a dearth of empirical studies to understand real-world impacts. For example, it is difficult to see the combined effect of smaller non-price ‘nudges’ such as presenting expensive products first to some consumers, which may have the same effect as the personalisation of listed prices, but be harder to detect. Some harms may be particularly challenging to identify. More research, as ever, is needed to assess and quantify these areas of harm because digital markets are evolving rapidly. They can also use their information gathering powers to identify and remedy harms on either a case-by-case basis or as part of an ex-ante regime overseen by a regulator of technology firms, such as the proposed Digital Markets Unit (DMU) in the UK. Regulators can help to set standards and facilitate better accountability of algorithmic systems, including support for the development of ethical approaches, guidelines, tools and principles. We finally discuss the role of regulators. However, to understand fully how an algorithmic system works and whether consumer or competition law is being breached, regulators need appropriate methods to audit the system. Potentially problematic systems can be identified even without access to underlying algorithms and data. Next, we summarise techniques that could be used to analyse algorithmic systems. We also describe how using ineffective algorithms to oversee platform activity fails to prevent harm. We outline the most recent developments in the algorithmic collusion literature collusion appears an increasingly significant risk if the use of more complex pricing algorithms becomes widespread. The paper then explores how the use of algorithms can exclude competitors and so reduce competition (for example, a platform preferencing its own products). These harms often occur through the manipulation of consumer choices, without the awareness of the consumer. Personalisation can be harmful because it is difficult to detect either by consumers or others, targets vulnerable consumers or has unfair distributive effects. We first describe direct harms to consumers, many of which involve personalisation. This paper reviews the potential harms to competition and consumers from the use of algorithms, focussing on those the CMA or other national competition or consumer authorities may be best placed to address. The publication of this paper, and the accompanying call for information mark the launch of a new CMA programme of work on analysing algorithms, which aims to develop our knowledge and help us better identify and address harms. As algorithmic systems become more sophisticated, they are often less transparent, and it is more challenging to identify when they cause harm. However, algorithms can be used in ways that reduce competition and harm consumers. Importantly, algorithms are at the heart of many technology companies, including some of the world’s most strategically significant firms. Algorithms have enabled considerable gains in efficiency and effectiveness, such as repricing portfolios of thousands of products in real time. Many of these online activities and the markets that underpin them could not exist without algorithms, often in the form of artificial intelligence. FTC and other regulatory agencies in their review of the Amazon-iRobot merger.We spend much of our lives online, be it consuming news, socialising, dating, ordering food, or arranging travel. Consumer groups had voiced concerns after the deal was announced last year that it would further the e-commerce giant's dominance in the smart home market.Īmazon said it’s “working cooperatively with the relevant regulators in their review of the merger.”īedford, Massachusetts-based iRobot, which makes the popular Roomba robotic vacuum cleaners, said it “continues to work cooperatively with both the U.S. by the Federal Trade Commission amid worries about Amazon's growing market power. The acquisition is already facing a review in the U.S. watchdog invited comments on the deal from “any interested party.” The Competition and Markets Authority said Thursday that it's considering whether the deal will result in a “substantial lessening of competition” within the United Kingdom. LONDON (AP) - British antitrust regulators have started investigating Amazon's purchase of robot vacuum maker iRobot, adding further scrutiny to the $1.7 billion deal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |