This study provides recommendations on how to make personal data portability more effective. This will truly empower consumers to use the services they want and share their data with whoever they wish and stimulate innovation in Europe. With the entry into force of the GDPR, European citizens gained new rights, notably with data portability. But two years later, there is still little sign of people exercising this right, and of companies offering an easy and convenient service for data portability. While the European Commission is finalising its evaluation of the GDPR and closes its consultation on the European data strategy, the authors, professors Jan Krämer, Pierre Senellart and Alexandre de Streel*, warn that the current legal framework requires clarifications to better empower European citizens in a data-driven society. In this study, they identify barriers to data portability, including the lack of possibilities to import data as well as the lack of common standards and tools to access data as easy as the click of a button. The ability to provide users with a centralised dashboard for monitoring and controlling the flow of their data is also critically missing. “Today, consumers do not widely use data portability for reasons that can and should be overcome. Making data portability more effective is better for competition, for innovation and to empower users,” stress the authors. “There should be no second-guessing on whether to make data portability more effective, the time to act is now.” The current EU framework encourages data portability, but there are legal gaps that the EU should fill. The authors insist on the need for detailed guidance on how data portability can be facilitated and on which data is subject to data portability without violating privacy rights. They advocate that data provided by users when using a service, such as search history (i.e. “observed data”) should clearly be included under the scope of data portability. The authors consider it essential that the obligation to offer standardised Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) be much more widespread to enable consumers to continuously port their data. “We believe that standardised APIs that enable continuous data portability is a prerequisite for encouraging more organisations to import personal data, and for encouraging more consumers to initiate such transfers,” explain the authors. Projects, such as the Data Transfer Project have highlighted that continuous data portability is technically feasible. The authors argue that Personal Management Information Systems (PIMSs) facilitate the complex consent management and offer users a centralised dashboard for monitoring and controlling the flow of their data will have a crucial role to play for the wider adoption of data portability. “It must be as easy as clicking a button for consumers to continuously share data they created with one provider to another provider. This may also require educating and informing users on their rights through information campaigns alongside clear policy measures,” explain the authors. Nevertheless, they stress that PIMSs are not likely to find a sustainable business model, and thus, policy makers should support the emergence of open-source projects by setting common standards for data transfers, consent management, and identity management.

The right to privacy is a fundamental right. Along with the related right to personal data protection, it has come to take a central place in contemporary employment relations and shows significant relevance for the future of work. This thoroughly researched volume, which offers insightful essays by leading European academics and policymakers in labour and employment law, is the first to present a thoroughly up-to-date Europe-wide survey and analysis of the intensive and growing interaction of workplace relations systems with developments in privacy law. With abundant reference to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the work of the International Labour Organisation, the book proceeds as a series of country chapters, each by a recognised expert in a specific jurisdiction. Legal comparison is based on a questionnaire circulated to the contributors in advance. Each country chapter addresses the national legal weight of such issues and topics as the following: interaction of privacy and data protection law; legitimacy, purpose limitation, and data minimisation; transparency; role of consent; artificial intelligence and automated decision-making; health-related data, including biometrics and psychological testing; monitoring and surveillance; and use of social media. A detailed introductory overview begins the volume. The research for this book is based on a dynamic methodology, founded in scientific desk research and expert networking. Recognising that the need for further guidance for privacy at work has been demonstrated by various European and international bodies, this book delivers a signal contribution to the field for social partners, practitioners, policymakers, scholars, and all other stakeholders working at the crossroads of privacy, data protection, and labour law.

Across the world, regulators and policy makers are grappling with how to establish a competitive, safe and fair online environment that also safeguards users’ fundamental rights as citizens. Ahead of the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), this book “Digital markets and online platforms: new perspectives on regulation and competition law“, presents CERRE’s latest contribution to the debate with concrete policy recommendations. Together, the policy recommendations in this book present a roadmap that should be pursued for EU policy makers to safeguard competition and innovation in digital platform markets. They can be organised into three key areas for action: (i) More effective enforcement, (ii) increased transparency and switching easiness, and (iii) providing access to key innovation capabilities. “The need to safeguard fair and vibrant competition, which is also seen as an important driving factor for innovation, is nothing new for policy makers. However, the characteristics and complexities of digital markets have challenged some of the traditional approaches.” – Jan Krämer, editor of the book and CERRE Academic Co-Director The book’s recommendations highlight that platform transparency and associated data collection by authorities, as well as data sharing by platforms (initiated through consumers or authorities), are the two most important overarching policy measures for platform markets in the near future. They facilitate enforcement, consumer choice, and innovation capabilities in the digital economy. The contents of this book were presented and debated during a CERRE live debate with guest speakers Anne Yvrande-Billon (Arcep’s Director of Economic, Market and Digital Affairs), MEP Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Vice-President of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) and Javier Espinoza (Financial Times’ EU Correspondent covering competition and digital policy).

This book analyzes the business model of enterprises in the digital economy by taking an economic and comparative perspective. The aim of this book is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the anti-competitive behavior of companies who monopolize data, and put forward the necessity of regulating data monopoly by exploring the causes and characteristics of their anti-competitive behavior. It studies four aspects of the differences between data monopoly and traditional monopolistic behavior, namely defining the relevant market for data monopolies, the entry barrier, the problem of determining the dominant position of data monopoly, and the influence on consumer welfare. It points out the limitations of traditional regulatory tools and discusses how new regulatory methods could be developed within the competition legal framework to restrict data monopolies. It proposes how economic analytical tools used in traditional anti-monopoly law are facing challenges and how competition enforcement agencies could adjust regulatory methods to deal with new anti-competitive behavior by data monopolies.

In the dynamic landscape of EU digital platforms regulation, we are at a focal point of discussions shaping the future of implementation of the Digital Markets Act – arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation of the current times’ digital policy sphere. With the DMA aiming for contestability and fairness in digital markets, designated gatekeeper platforms are set to unveil their compliance plans on March 2024. The European Commission, in its unique role as an enforcer, will lead the work of determining non-compliance and ensure that the DMA fulfils its ambitious goals. However, the success of implementation will depend on the principles on which the new law will be applied. This CERRE report recommends that the DMA implementation process should be guided by the substantive principles of effectiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination, legal predictability, and consistency with other EU laws. Furthermore, the Commission will have to approach enforcement taking into account the procedural principles of responsive regulation and participation, due process, and ex ante and ex post evaluation. The report then applies those principles to series of specific DMA obligations: choice architecture, horizontal and vertical interoperability and data related obligations. It is also essential to agree on how the Commission, gatekeepers, and third parties will engage with each other. The DMA provides a model of compliance which is not based solely on deterrence; instead, the gatekeepers are encouraged to and will comply by engaging co-operatively with the Commission and third parties. However, it is still up for question how this principle will be applied, what it expects from the stakeholders, and how the Commission itself will exercise its deterring powers to enforce compliance. On top of it all, this CERRE DMA edition is also proposing a set of quantitative measurement indicators, so-called output indicators, each relating to a particular obligation or set of obligations, in order to better understand the impact of obligations on the relations between gatekeepers and third parties. These quantitative indicators will not represent specific targets or thresholds against which compliance should be assessed. They will neither attempt to measure the effect of changes in conduct on market outcomes for users nor, more generally, competition. These quantitative measures will be added to other evidence, such as complaints or qualitative representations from affected parties, including gatekeepers, which the Commission will consider in its compliance assessments. This report was written in the framework of a 8-months-long, multi-stakeholder CERRE initiative entitled the ‘DMA Compliance Forum’ that created a neutral and trusted platform and facilitated dialogue among CERRE members and academics to contribute to the effective and proportionate enforcement of the regulation.

Analyzes the regulation of data access and transfer to understand how internet users can obtain the data they generate.

Today’s unprecedented growth of data and their ubiquity in our lives are signs that the data revolution is transforming the world. And yet much of the value of data remains untapped. Data collected for one purpose have the potential to generate economic and social value in applications far beyond those originally anticipated. But many barriers stand in the way, ranging from misaligned incentives and incompatible data systems to a fundamental lack of trust. World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives explores the tremendous potential of the changing data landscape to improve the lives of poor people, while also acknowledging its potential to open back doors that can harm individuals, businesses, and societies. To address this tension between the helpful and harmful potential of data, this Report calls for a new social contract that enables the use and reuse of data to create economic and social value, ensures equitable access to that value, and fosters trust that data will not be misused in harmful ways. This Report begins by assessing how better use and reuse of data can enhance the design of public policies, programs, and service delivery, as well as improve market efficiency and job creation through private sector growth. Because better data governance is key to realizing this value, the Report then looks at how infrastructure policy, data regulation, economic policies, and institutional capabilities enable the sharing of data for their economic and social benefits, while safeguarding against harmful outcomes. The Report concludes by pulling together the pieces and offering an aspirational vision of an integrated national data system that would deliver on the promise of producing high-quality data and making them accessible in a way that promotes their safe use and reuse. By examining these opportunities and challenges, the Report shows how data can benefit the lives of all people, particularly poor people in low- and middle-income countries. .

The emergence of new technologies and business models such as data analytics, online platforms, and artificial intelligence has shaken the economy and society at their foundations. Recently, it has become apparent that public authorities must take a pro-active role to define the rules of the newly emerged markets before potential issues and concerns cement. How rules are currently written determines who will exert a stronger influence on the economy and society in the coming years. This is key reason why digital policymakers are currently exposed to tremendous pressure by stakeholders. This book takes a journey through all the main areas in the digital economy that beg for policy action. Readers may learn about the general features of a digital economy and the EU long term strategic plans to govern it. They may learn about telecom markets, the data economy, the digitization of the public sector, cybersecurity, the platform economy, liability for online content, e-commerce, the sharing economy, the impact of technology on labour markets, digital inequality, disinformation, and artificial intelligence. This book provides students with the background knowledge and analytical tools necessary to understand, analyse, and assess the impact of EU digital policies on the European economy and society. The approach is both theoretical and applied. The main goal is to prepare students to give informed and economically sound advice to an EU policymaker for digital affairs.

As the European Commission is preparing its Data Act, this new CERRE report provides concrete recommendations for effective data sharing governance, more specifically when a party has significant incentives not to share data. The forthcoming data act should provide better incentives to stimulate two forms of data sharing: individual users’ data sharing and bulk data sharing between firms. Data sharing is seen by many as an effective means to safeguard competition in digital markets, allowing smaller players to get access to precious data. The authors of the CERRE report, Richard Feasey and Alexandre de Streel, have analysed current EU rules imposing data sharing and conclude these do not provide the comprehensive governance framework needed for data sharing to effectively take place. “Given the incentives a gatekeeper platform may have not to share data, and the potential for this platform to leverage into other markets, we recommend imposing an obligation to share data”, explain Richard Feasey. “The most important and difficult task for regulators lies in determining the type and scope of data that is to be shared and which organisations should be obliged to share it. We conclude that better incentives and governance are needed to stimulate two forms of data sharing in the EU: data about individuals and bulk data between firms.” Regulating recipients as well as donors Regulation for data sharing should not be viewed as being limited to the oversight of a small number of large platforms that might be obliged to share data. It also requires strict oversight of potentially a very large number of smaller firms that might seek access to such data. Regulators will need to establish an effective and comprehensive system of regulation of both donors and recipients of data to guard against misuse and to ensure trust on all sides. Sharing individual users data Over time, the sharing or porting of data about individual users’ data could accumulate and be used for other purposes. For this reason, the authors recommend that obligations to share data about individual users should be quite extensive and apply to digital platforms which may be described as meeting the ‘gatekeeper minus’ threshold. The report encourages regulators to require the sharing of individual user data without any payment. If high transaction costs and uncertain users’ benefits prevent the effectiveness of this approach, policymakers should consider more radical approaches, such as allowing the use of an ‘opt-out’ option (rather than, the current ‘opt-in’) for the sharing of personal data in order to ensure fair competition in digital markets. The European Commission should consider provisions in the forthcoming Data Act to enable the use of ‘opt-out’ arrangements for the sharing of personal data to preserve market contestability under certain prescribed conditions. Although this may represent some loss of consumer sovereignty over their data, such a trade-off may need to be made if data sharing arrangements are to achieve their aim of ensuring contestability in digital markets. Bulk sharing of user data The competitive impact of the bulk transfer of aggregate user data could be significant since the volume of data to be shared is likely to be very substantial and may represent a significant proportion of the donor platform’s data assets. Since obtaining individual consent from every user would not be feasible in these circumstances, regulators and policymakers should consider other mechanisms to enable the bulk sharing of non-anonymised user data. Alternatively, regulators should consider requiring the platform that controls the data to allow third party access to the full data set so that third parties may train algorithms or otherwise derive the same sorts of insights from the data that are available to the incumbent. Recipients of aggregated data should be required to pay for the data, with the payment varying according to the volume and value of the data being shared (and not simply the costs of implementing the data sharing arrangements or storing the data). The primary concern here is to preserve incentives for both parties in the sharing arrangement to innovate and invest in existing or new digital services to acquire additional data for themselves. The Commission should undertake a study to consider how regulators would establish wholesale prices for data that was to be shared. The challenge ahead European policymakers should consider legislative changes with the Data Act to enable the sharing of personal data on an ‘opt-out’ basis under certain narrowly prescribed circumstances and to ensure contestability in digital markets. Finally, data sharing remedies that the report considers arise from the assumption that digital platforms will continue to derive significant market power from their centralised control of big data sets. Regulators and policymakers should also keep an eye on new technologies which might enable a much greater degree of decentralisation and wider distribution of data, thereby removing the very sources of market power which this report has sought to address. This report follows another CERRE research analysing the processes that turn data into economic value for online search, e-commerce and media platforms.

This report analyses the processes that turn data into economic value for online search, e-commerce and media platforms. It concludes that forcing data sharing through policy intervention would not prevent dominant incumbents to continue to benefit economically from greater access to data over new entrants. Instead, policy makers should focus on enabling niche entry, niche growth and a level playing field for competitors in new and emerging markets. Data play a central role in the business models that shape competition and innovation in digital markets. As dominant providers of online services collect ever more user data they generate data-driven network effects. They can then improve their services faster, and venture faster into related markets than competitors with less data, thereby raising entry barriers for innovative start-ups. The authors, Sally Broughton Micova (CERRE & University of East Anglia), Jan Krämer (CERRE & University of Passau) and Daniel Schnurr (University of Passau), have analysed processes that transform data into economic value for online search, e-commerce and media platforms. They find that in each case, more data, especially on user behaviour, gradually improves the quality of the service, thereby generating high economic benefits for the firm. The authors find that data-driven network effects can nevertheless be a source of efficiency which can ultimately benefit consumers. Even if some data is shared through policy intervention, dominant incumbents will continue to benefit economically and competitively from greater access to data over new entrants. “We conclude that it is neither realistic nor desirable to try to break data-driven network effects through policy intervention. Instead, we would strongly encourage policy makers to focus on enabling niche entry and niche growth. To do so, they should facilitate the sharing of behavioural user data gathered by the dominant firm with other firms.” The authors provide policy recommendations for data access remedies to safeguard competition, innovation and the openness of the digital ecosystem: 1. Remedies that achieve a more level playing field in the digital economy by breaking the data-driven network effects of data-rich incumbents should be entertained as a last resort and only under specific conditions. 2. Policy makers should foster data sharing on two levels to strike a balance between consumers’ privacy, competition and innovation. They should require the sharing of aggregated and anonymised raw user data in bulk, after a careful review and on a case-by-case basis. They should also facilitate the sharing of detailed raw user data through improved data portability, based on individual users’ consent. Bulk sharing of raw user data should be limited to data that was collected as a by-product of the incumbent’s dominant user-facing service, such as search logs, in order to maintain incentives for innovation and data collection. The main challenge will be to balance privacy concerns with maintaining enough detailed data to ensure it is of value to third-parties. 3. Dominant firms should also be obliged to allow consumers to port their raw data to another provider continuously and in real time. Privacy concerns can then be overcome and the shared user profiles can be more detailed than under bulk sharing. In concert with bulk-sharing, data portability can be a valuable source for attaining both detailed and representative data sets.