The Experts below are selected from a list of 221574 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Francesco Ducci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Google search case in Europe: tying and the single monopoly profit theorem in two-sided markets
European Journal of Law and Economics, 2019Co-Authors: Edward Iacobucci, Francesco DucciAbstract:This paper provides an economic and legal theory of harm applicable to the case against Google in Europe over search bias. So far, no clear legal and economic theory has yet been delineated by the European Commission, nor consensus in the literature has emerged with regard to the theory of foreclosure that could support the case, or with regard to the specific form of abuse of dominance applicable under European Law. The paper shows that the Law and economics of tying applies to search bias. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary to rely on the more formalistic elements of Article 102 TFEU, or to characterize Google as an essential facility, in order to find a valid legal theory of harm. We show that Google’s conduct of linking its proprietary vertical (or specialized) search platforms to its horizontal (or general) search platform through visual prominence, as it has done with Google Shopping, fits within the legal boundaries of tying under European Law. From an economic perspective, we show that the two-sided nature of both horizontal and vertical search provides compelling reasons why foreclosure of competition may be profitable, and why the single monopoly profit theorem may fail in this context. As we show in the paper, by tying vertical search to general search through visual prominence, Google can attract additional advertisers on its vertical search platform that would have possibly advertised on competing vertical search platforms without a tie. The effect of tying is a restriction on competition in vertical search that deserves antitrust scrutiny.
-
the google search case in europe tying and the single monopoly profit theorem in two sided markets
2018Co-Authors: Edward M Iacobucci, Francesco DucciAbstract:This paper provides an economic and legal theory of harm applicable to the case against Google in Europe over search bias. So far, no clear legal and economic theory has yet been delineated by the European Commission, nor consensus in the literature has emerged with regard to the theory of foreclosure that could support the case, or with regard to the specific form of abuse of dominance applicable under European Law. The paper shows that the Law and economics of tying applies to search bias. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary to rely on the more formalistic elements of Article 102 TFEU, or to characterize Google as an essential facility, in order to find a valid legal theory of harm. We show that Google’s conduct of linking its proprietary vertical (or specialized) search platforms to its horizontal (or general) search platform through visual prominence fits within the legal boundaries of tying under European Law. From an economic perspective, we show that the two-sided nature of both horizontal and vertical search provides compelling reasons why foreclosure of competition may be profitable, and why the single monopoly profit theorem may fail in this context. As we show in the paper, by tying vertical search to general search through visual prominence, Google can attract additional advertisers on its vertical search platform that would have possibly advertised on competing vertical search platforms without a tie. The effect of tying is a restriction on competition in vertical search that deserves antitrust scrutiny.
Gerhard Wagner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
environmental liability in European private Law
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Gerhard WagnerAbstract:The paper explores environmental liability in European Law. One focus is on the European directive on liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage of 21 April 2004, another on the legal systems of the Member States. The paper covers compensation for harm caused to the environment as well as liability for harm suffered by individuals from their exposure to toxic substances in their environments.
-
punitive damages in European private Law
2011Co-Authors: Gerhard WagnerAbstract:The paper explores the availability of punitive damages in the legal systems of the European Union. It surveys European Law as well as the legal systems of the Member States.
Paul De Hert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
European Law enforcement and us data companies a decade of cooperation free from Law
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Angela Aguinaldo, Paul De HertAbstract:Online evidence has been indispensable in criminal matters but due to its transnational and volatile nature, there have been issues and challenges as regards access, transfer, and usage in criminal investigations and prosecutions. In recent years, practices have been established to overcome the hurdles of cross-border access to online evidence. One of these practices is direct cooperation between Law enforcement authorities and data companies, the latter of which are mostly based in the US. While this cooperation has been less blatant and apparent in its earlier years due to the want of legal basis, Law enforcement authorities have been less coy towards the practice more recently. The present contribution walks the reader through the recent developments on codifying the practice of direct cooperation between European Law enforcement authorities and US data companies. These developments evince how Law enforcement authorities are willingly and wittingly overlooking protective safeguards and issues that ought to be addressed and thoroughly discussed. By sanctioning a relationship of direct cooperation, not only are state interests affected, but likewise issues of trust, MLA rights, privacy and data protection are affected. There ought to be a thorough discussion on these issues and hopefully the lessons learned from the recent CJEU judgments and the German Federal Constitutional Court are taken into consideration.
Edward Iacobucci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Google search case in Europe: tying and the single monopoly profit theorem in two-sided markets
European Journal of Law and Economics, 2019Co-Authors: Edward Iacobucci, Francesco DucciAbstract:This paper provides an economic and legal theory of harm applicable to the case against Google in Europe over search bias. So far, no clear legal and economic theory has yet been delineated by the European Commission, nor consensus in the literature has emerged with regard to the theory of foreclosure that could support the case, or with regard to the specific form of abuse of dominance applicable under European Law. The paper shows that the Law and economics of tying applies to search bias. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary to rely on the more formalistic elements of Article 102 TFEU, or to characterize Google as an essential facility, in order to find a valid legal theory of harm. We show that Google’s conduct of linking its proprietary vertical (or specialized) search platforms to its horizontal (or general) search platform through visual prominence, as it has done with Google Shopping, fits within the legal boundaries of tying under European Law. From an economic perspective, we show that the two-sided nature of both horizontal and vertical search provides compelling reasons why foreclosure of competition may be profitable, and why the single monopoly profit theorem may fail in this context. As we show in the paper, by tying vertical search to general search through visual prominence, Google can attract additional advertisers on its vertical search platform that would have possibly advertised on competing vertical search platforms without a tie. The effect of tying is a restriction on competition in vertical search that deserves antitrust scrutiny.
Armin Von Bogdandy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
von der technokratischen rechtsgemeinschaft zum politisierten rechtsraum probleme und entwicklungslinien in der grundbegrifflichkeit des europarechts from a technocratic legal community to a politicized legal space problems and developments in the basic conception of European Law
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Armin Von BogdandyAbstract:German Abstract: Der Beitrag zeigt im ersten Schritt anhand einer Analyse von Walter Hallsteins Schriften, wie das uberkommene Verstandnis, wonach die Europaischen Union in erster Linie eine Rechtsgemeinschaft ist, in die Jahre gekommen ist: Es erfasst die aktuelle Gestalt Europas weder deskriptiv noch normativ. Idiosynkrasien des spezifisch deutschen Verstandnisses kommen zur Sprache. Im zweiten Schritt zeigt er, dass der Begriff des europaischen Rechtsraumes das Potential hat, ein ahnlich fundamentales Verstandnis sowohl der Errungenschaften als auch der Herausforderungen des Europarechts zu vermitteln, insbesondere in Bezug auf die Rechtsstaatlichkeit und die Politisierung der EU. Letztlich zeichnet der Beitrag die Entwicklung nach, wie zunachst ferne technokratische Institutionen den Burgern immer naher gekommen sind. English Abstract:The received understanding of the European Union as being above all a community of Law has run its course. The article dissects core features of the seminal concept as devised by Walter Hallstein, the EEC Commission’s first president, showing how much Europe’s contemporary constitution has moved beyond it. The article also explains the specificities of the German Rechtsgemeinschaft, allowing German reactions in the current rule of Law crises to be better understood. Finally, the article shows the potential of the European legal space as a basic concept for comprehending both the achievements of European Law and its challenges, in particular with regard to the rule of Law and the politicization of the EU. It thereby tracks the evolution of remote technocratic institutions into a complex institutional web existing in close proximity to everyone.
-
European Law beyond ever closer union repositioning the concept its thrust and the ecj s comparative methodology
European Law Journal, 2016Co-Authors: Armin Von BogdandyAbstract:The article investigates competing understandings of European Law. It supports, against the prevailing EU-centred understanding, an ecumenical concept that embraces EU Law, supplementing international instruments, the European Convention on Human Rights and, importantly, various domestic Laws enacting or responding to such transnational Law, as well as European comparative Law. To keep the concept in sync with European politics, it posits a new idea that binds the parts together: to provide for a European legal space rather than further European integration (the ever closer union). This idea can also serve as European Law's functional equivalent to forming one legal order. European Law thus conceived grasps the puzzling complex of interdependent legal orders, sets a common frame for corresponding reconstructions (European composite constructions, legal pluralism, network theories, federalism or intergovernmentalism) and allows forces with diverging outlooks to meet in one legal field, on one more neutral disciplinary platform. Within this framework, European comparative Law finds a new mission as well as a sound legal basis.
-
the transformation of European Law the reformed concept and its quest for comparison
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Armin Von BogdandyAbstract:The article investigates competing understandings of European Law. It supports, against the prevailing EU-centered understanding, an ecumenical concept that embraces EU Law, supplementing international instruments, the European Convention on Human Rights, and, importantly, various domestic Laws enacting or responding to such transnational Law, as well as European comparative Law. To keep the concept in sync with European politics, it posits a new idea that binds the parts together: to provide for a European legal space rather than further European integration (the ever closer union). This idea can also serve as European Law’s functional equivalent to forming one legal order. European Law thus conceived grasps the puzzling complex of interdependent legal orders, sets a common frame for corresponding reconstructions (European composite constructions, legal pluralism, network theories, federalism, or intergovernmentalism), and allows forces with diverging outlooks to meet in one legal field, on one more neutral disciplinary platform. Within this framework, European comparative Law finds a new mission as well as a sound legal basis.
