| 研究実績の概要 |
The research has resulted in a book on Algorithms, Collusion and Competition Law. The comparative research in the book reveals that competition law regimes recognizing concerted practices are better equipped to deal with algorithmic collusion. This will be so if the concept is void of any reference to intent. The book further reveals that countries with two provisions on horizontal and vertical agreements respectively have difficulties to deal with (algorithmic) hub-and-spoke cartels. India and China therefore amended their law. Japan did not. In the framework of the comparative research, the book points out that algorithms have been used to deal with resale price maintenance. It has also been pointed out that the qualification of Uber as a hub-and-spoke cartel has been controversial. Some studies try to bring Uber within that concept of hub-and-spoke, other studies consider the qualification of agency. The qualification may be important to fit a specific jurisdiction's competition law. The richer a competition law is in describing the theories of harm, the less this qualification becomes important. Japan, for example, could deal with Uber-like algorithms in a quite unique way through its provision of trading on restrictive terms. Two studies provide further insights derived from empirical studies. One study tests what kind of collusion screening tests are able to find collusion in the online grocery market in Singapore. The other study holds that better lessons can be drawn if more information on the operation of an algorithm is available through auditing.
|
