regs to riches

Share this post
🤝 oversharing
www.regs2riches.com

🤝 oversharing

privacy + competition

Vass Bednar
and
Ana Qarri
Oct 10, 2021
7
Share this post
🤝 oversharing
www.regs2riches.com
Twitter avatar for @VocalTomes
Brittany Tomes | VocalTomes 🎙🤖🏳️‍🌈 (She / Her) @VocalTomes
Image
10:57 PM ∙ Oct 5, 2021
268,790Likes33,027Retweets
Twitter avatar for @jpbrammer
JP @jpbrammer
let the bad art friend story be a reminder that not liking my posts is a slippery slope to being sued
10:50 PM ∙ Oct 5, 2021
13,840Likes1,511Retweets

💫 This edition of “Regs to Riches” is co-authored by Ana Qarri, a law student in her final term at the McGill Faculty of Law.


Twitter avatar for @montezumachavez
Luis Alberto Montezuma @montezumachavez
If you believe in synergies between data protection and privacy regulations, consumer law, and competition law, then this case is for you.
Twitter avatar for @L_K_Henning
Laurel Henning @L_K_Henning
New from me for @mlexclusive Federal Court of Australia, Judge David Yates said today he wasn't persuaded by the ACCC's request for internal Google documents identifying the role of company committees in decisions to publish a 2016 privacy notification.#dataprivacy https://t.co/Fd0huEDjdH
1:38 AM ∙ Sep 28, 2021

Last week, the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Lina Khan put out a statement asserting that, “policing data privacy and security is now a mainstay of the FTC’s work.” 

Twitter avatar for @issielapowsky
issie lapowsky @issielapowsky
NEW: FTC chair Lina Khan is best known as an antitrust crusader. But she appears to be a privacy hawk too. A 2019 paper she co-authored compared social media execs to used car salesmen and argued that personalized ads are incompatible with user privacy.
protocol.comMore bad news for Big Tech: Lina Khan’s a privacy hawk, tooThe incoming agency chair once likened widespread data collection to environmental pollution. What can she do about it now?
2:02 PM ∙ Jun 21, 2021
75Likes33Retweets

In Canada, the Competition Act does not currently contemplate data privacy practices when evaluating anti-competitive behaviours, though it has considered data management in the context of deceptive marketing. The yet-to-be-named new role of Data Commissioner - charged with overseeing new regulations for large digital companies aimed at protecting individuals’ personal data and encouraging greater competition in the digital marketplace - may be able to bring a lens that integrates privacy and algorithmic pricing into antitrust investigations. 

There is a natural opportunity for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) and the Competition Bureau to work together on these issues - especially because misleading advertising falls under the Bureau’s jurisdiction. In fact, the two offices have collaborated just once in the aftermath of Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal. Following an investigation that took place between 2012-2018, the Commissioner pursued investigations for misleading advertising and the OPC pursued its investigation into contraventions of Canada’s private-sector privacy act (PIPEDA), resulting in a $9M penalty to settle concerns about misleading privacy claims. 

Twitter avatar for @montezumachavez
Luis Alberto Montezuma @montezumachavez
If you believe in synergies between data protection and privacy regulations, consumer law, and competition law, then Consent Agreement between the the Commissioner of Competition of Canada and Facebook is for you!
10:06 PM ∙ Sep 30, 2021
3Likes1Retweet

Last year, deputy commissioner for the Competition Bureau's deceptive marketing practices group, Josephine Palumbo, advocated for the reform of Canadian law to permit the sharing of information between her office and the OPC.

The otherwise strict and artificial separation of competition policy from privacy considerations does not serve citizens or businesses well. There are plenty of practices where unclear privacy policies could empower novel anti-competitive behaviours, like: self-preferencing, algorithmic pricing, monopsony on job platforms, throttling referral schemes, and even access to work. 

  • The US is currently considering the prohibition of discriminatory conduct by dominant platforms, including a ban on self-preferencing and picking winners and losers online through the recently proposed, “American Innovation and Choice Online Act.” 

  • An abuse of dominance case considering whether Amazon leverages data it collects from third-party vendors to inform its marketing strategy for its private-label products and self-preference them on the platform could inform how we approach similar self-preferencing by platforms like Loblaw media.
     

  • Other scholars and lawmakers are considering whether the use of data to inform algorithmic pricing regimes that have come to characterize gig platforms like Uber can constitute a collusive practice (or anti-competitive agreement). 

  • Christopher Mim’s fantastic new book about shipping, “Arriving Today,” notes that data is a mechanism to achieve monopsony (a market system in which there is one buyer) and observed that, “a number of shipping platforms allow shippers to see what rates their competitors are paying, which leads to a form of “monopsony” in which the buyers of truckers’ services hold the balance of power and truckers have none.”

  • The EU is considering the opportunities and challenges that self-employed people face in providing services through online platforms. The lessons they derive will be applicable here, too. 

  • Online platforms can even throttle online referral schemes; optimizing for “referring a friend,” but withholding achieving a bonus in a specified amount of time because the platform controls access to work. 

Share regs to riches

It is time for the Competition Bureau to deeply consider the value and power of consumer data and the associated advantages it can create when it undertakes merger reviews. This was essentially one of the recommendations in the 2018 Canadian House of Commons report “Democracy Under Threat: Risks and Solutions in the Era of Disinformation and Data Monopoly”: to “study the potential economic harms caused by data-opolies and determine whether the Competition Act should be modernized.”

The discourse in Canada is currently anchored around the central challenge of balancing privacy with innovation; but privacy can be used to squelch innovation just as much as it can protect it. In the digital age, appeals to privacy can undermine competition and control markets by raising barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and raising operational costs for small business owners beyond what they can afford. Canada should similarly interrogate the overlap between data privacy and competition. We have an opportunity to do that as the returning Liberal government committed to re-introducing Bill C-11: Consumer Privacy Protection Act.

Canada’s competition regime already suffers from being decoupled from two critical provincial connections: consumer protection and labour laws. Divorcing our competition regime from privacy considerations hurts consumers by preventing the kind of coordination across policy leaders that the digital economy demands, limiting each actor’s ability to be truly effective while also disadvantageous to consumers and entrepreneurs. We keep letting the genie out of the bottle, and then consulting on what the bottle should look like years later. But that’s a failure of policy making, and not of competition law. 

Other jurisdictions are having novel, modern conversations about competition that Canada should participate in more actively. For instance, the US is our natural trading partner and is contemplating new antitrust laws. We should be in general alignment with their regime.     

We’ve been having the same conversation on competition in Canada for some time: fretting about access and price in telecommunications, noticing and rallying around the implications of media consolidation for the vibrancy of our democracy, and lamenting the obvious co-ordination among banks and even grocers. These are important debates, but they have come to overshadow the unique challenges that entrepreneurs and small businesses face when accessing markets and scaling in an online environment.

In seeking to better support a thriving digital economy, Canada has a massive opportunity to leverage the potential of competition reform to strengthen labour markets, level-set on guidance for competing in digital markets, and integrate privacy considerations into modernization efforts. Sometimes meaningful policy innovation is modest and incremental. The Competition Bureau doesn’t need a monopoly on competition-relevant interventions, and should be able to - at the very least - share information with the Privacy Commissioner.

Leave a comment


🙌 Bonus content from R2R reader Phil Dawson:

Twitter avatar for @PhilipDawson
Philip Dawson @PhilipDawson
@VassB This letter from the Minister to the Competition Bureau seemed to pave the way for cross collaboration:
competitionbureau.gc.caLetter from Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to the Commissioner of Competition - Competition Bureau CanadaLetter from Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to the Commissioner of Competition
1:45 PM ∙ Oct 10, 2021
1Like1Retweet

Twitter avatar for @caparsons
Christopher Parsons @caparsons
🚨🚨NEW REPORT from @citizenlab: Pandemic Privacy: A preliminary analysis of collection technologies, data collection laws, and legislative reform during COVID-19 citizenlab.ca/2021/09/pandem… 🚨🚨
citizenlab.caPandemic Privacy: A Preliminary Analysis of Collection Technologies, Data Collection Laws, and Legislative Reform during COVID-19 - The Cit…In this report, we undertake a preliminary comparative analysis of how different information technologies were mobilized in response to COVID-19 to collect data, the extent to which Canadian laws impeded the response to COVID-19, and the potential consequences of reforming data protection or privacy…
1:32 PM ∙ Sep 28, 2021
73Likes31Retweets

And the video from our conversation on “Silicon Values: Free Speech, Democracy and Big Tech” is now online.

📺 Watch the playback


Vass Bednar is the Executive Director of McMaster University’s new Master of Public Policy in Digital Society Program and a Public Policy Forum Fellow.

Share this post
🤝 oversharing
www.regs2riches.com
Previous
Next
A guest post by
Ana Qarri
JD candidate at the McGill Faculty of Law
Comments
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Vass Bednar
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing