Protecting Democracy in the Digital Era: What Can Competition Law Contribute?

On the daybreak of 2025, liberal democracy is confronted with a substantial problem: Huge Tech bosses seem to leverage their market energy for far-reaching political affect, with none democratic legitimisation to take action. As somebody engaged on problems with market energy within the digital economic system, one can not assist however surprise: shouldn’t competitors legislation be capable of comprise (a few of) this unseeming wielding of market energy? This has been a core query in my analysis in recent times (see right here, right here, right here and right here), and that query has by no means appeared as related as immediately. Earlier than delving into competitors legislation’s doable contribution to tackling the anti-democratic wielding of Huge Tech market energy, a caveat is so as: competitors legislation can actually contribute to defending democracy within the digital period, however it might solely accomplish that along with extra focused legal guidelines and rules.

A little bit background

Let’s rewind to the outgoing nineteenth century for a second. Again then, lawmakers within the US have been confronted with an identical query, as the large trusts have been utilizing their financial energy for political achieve. Joseph Keppler famously captured the sentiment of that period in his cartoon ‘The Bosses of the Senate’, printed in Puck in 1889.

On the identical time, Senator John Sherman cautioned: “If we might not undergo an emperor we must always not undergo an autocrat of commerce with energy to stop competitors and to repair the worth of any commodity.” Finally, this led to the adoption of the Sherman Anti-Belief Act of 1890 and marked the start of competitors legislation within the US.

Through the years, US competitors legislation has usually come to deal with a slim understanding of client welfare, wearing issues of effectivity. Within the face of the challenges that Huge Tech seems to be more and more posing to liberal democracy, some might discover that it’s time to rethink antitrust’s unique function: that of curbing the undue energy of financial gamers.

Within the European Union, which launched competitors legislation within the Nineteen Fifties underneath fairly completely different circumstances, the objectives of competitors legislation have remained extra numerous, not least due to the market integration crucial. The European competitors legislation provisions are contained in one of many Founding Treaties (dare I say: within the European structure, on the Verfassungsblog?). They stand side-by-side with worth assertions pertaining to our European democracy (particularly, Article 2 TEU) and the rights enshrined within the Constitution of Elementary Rights, which might have a bearing on their interpretation and utility. Solely not too long ago, in Google Android, the EU Normal Court docket made clear what could be at stake in digital competitors circumstances. It discovered that Google’s abusive conduct was harming customers’ pursuits in accessing a number of sources of data on-line. These pursuits, the Court docket reminded us, have been ‘not solely in line with competitors on the deserves, [but] additionally obligatory so as to guarantee plurality in a democratic society’.

Addressing democracy-related issues via competitors legislation

In opposition to this background, the query looms as to how immediately’s competitors legislation might reply to democracy-related issues that stem from Huge Tech corporations and their leaders. We are able to discern a metalevel strategy and a extra focused strategy.

On a metalevel strategy, competitors legislation can make sure that antitrust process is strongly rooted in democratic rules. This contains due course of, a regard for basic rights, and the independence of competitors authorities. Importantly, it additionally contains making certain that competitors authorities, when interacting with stakeholders and specialists, are given full disclosures of doable seize – a recreation that Huge Tech has been enjoying very successfully. By specializing in democratic antitrust process, the establishments implementing competitors legislation are strengthened, which can finally profit the circumstances they’re dealing with.

Competitors legislation’s response to democracy-related issues; primarily based on Robertson, Antitrust Bulletin 2022.

Nonetheless on a metalevel, however maybe extra to the purpose, competitors legislation can re-focus on one among its core missions: the dispersion of financial energy. A lot of the present debate on Huge Tech circles round problems with overwhelming market energy that’s concentrated within the palms of some individuals which can be on no account democratically accountable. Curbing financial energy can subsequently be efficient to get to the foundation of the issue. Merger management has an essential function to play right here. A number of digital mergers that got the inexperienced mild up to now have contributed to the present focus of market energy, that means {that a} extra cautious strategy could also be so as going ahead. Guidelines on unilateral conduct is also a useful gizmo, as they police the train of market energy. Their effectiveness is dependent upon the theories of hurt which can be utilized, which brings us to a extra focused strategy:

Theories of hurt that particularly take democracy-related issues into consideration, be it in merger management or in unilateral conduct, might enable competitors authorities to extra carefully contemplate situations by which highly effective corporations enter the political terrain with none democratic legitimisation. Media pluralism as a criterion is already thought-about by a number of competitors authorities when assessing mergers, together with in Austria. One other doable avenue was proven within the European Court docket of Justice’s Meta v Bundeskartellamt case of July 2023: in that case, the Court docket agreed that an exterior benchmark – within the case at hand: an infringement of the Normal Information Safety Regulation – may very well be informative when a contest authority assesses whether or not a dominant firm was appearing in step with competitors on the deserves. Why not use benchmarks that particularly serve to guard (digital) democracy as effectively? Doable candidates embody the Digital Companies Act, the Focused Political Promoting Regulation, the European Media Freedom Act, amongst others. Whereas some would possibly argue that it contradicts competitors legislation’s true objectives when competitors theories of hurt are infused with democratic values, others would possibly see this as a return to the historic roots of antitrust legislation. Both method, this strategy requires a extra detailed evaluation to make sure its workability.

An additional risk for competitors legislation is to make sure that antitrust cures – be it in mergers or in conduct circumstances – are pro-democratic. This criterion may very well be taken into consideration each time a digital case includes a treatment and there’s a option to be made between various kinds of cures.

Conclusions

As competitors authorities are grappling with their doable function in supporting the safety of democracy within the digital period, the 4 approaches outlined above might present methods by which that is possible and in step with the present authorized framework. To conclude, three points stand out:

Initially, democracy is multi-faceted. With the intention to contemplate the kind of response competitors legislation ought to resort to in additional sensible phrases, it’s helpful to think about explicit democratic values, together with a free vote, free debate, media pluralism, and so on. Then, one can contemplate how worth chains in digital markets and the way in which by which competitors operates in these markets relate to those values, significantly as regards community results, focused promoting, click-bait, and so on. In doing so, competitors authorities may even see how particular person elements of democracy can simply match into a contest legislation evaluation.

Second, competitors authorities should pursue circumstances by which democracy is at stake. In December 2024, a Roundtable on the OECD mentioned the interface between democracy and competitors legislation. One delegation highlighted the significance of case choice and prioritisation on this respect, and I couldn’t agree extra: competitors authorities must tackle the laborious circumstances by which completely different elements of liberal democracy are being hampered by market members. They need to not shrink back from these circumstances. Current stories within the Monetary Occasions counsel that the European Fee could also be bowing to the political stress from abroad and rethinking the enforcement of its digital regulation – together with competitors legislation, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Companies Act. If this have been true, it will not bode effectively for our European democracy and for the digital regulation that’s defending our European values. It might not bode effectively in any respect.

Third, competitors legislation can solely act as a complement. Extra focused legal guidelines and rules are urgently wanted – and the place they exist, they must be vigorously enforced.