Self-preferencing entre todo y nada: en busca de una definición según la ley brasilera de defensa de la competencia
HTML (English)
PDF (English)

Palabras clave

Self-preferencing
mercados digitales
plataformas
essential facilities
negativa a contratar

Cómo citar

Binotto, A., & Deluca, P. (2023). Self-preferencing entre todo y nada: en busca de una definición según la ley brasilera de defensa de la competencia. Latin American Law Review, (11), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.29263/lar11.2023.04

Resumen

El término “self-preferencing” ha ganado gran prominencia en el debate sobre competencia y regulación en los mercados de plataformas digitales. Sin embargo, cada vez más se ha utilizado para designar prácticas con estructuras, fundamentos económicos y efectos distintos, incluso en contextos que no pertenecen a los mercados digitales (aunque estas conductas ya existían en tiempos anteriores y haya sido ampliamente examinadas por las autoridades de competencia bajo fundamentos legales existentes). En Brasil, la situación no es diferente, debido a la falta de un criterio legal bien establecido, incluyendo definiciones acerca de presunciones de ilegalidad y la carga de la prueba, y al intento de agrupar bajo la misma “sombrilla” conductas diversas y distintas. Siguiendo los debates en la bibliografía académica internacional y, especialmente, las discusiones en el escenario europeo, este artículo ofrece sugerencias iniciales para el desarrollo de un criterio jurídico adecuado para la práctica de self-preferencing en Brasil. Presentamos un intento preliminar por diferenciar entre diversas categorías de self-preferencing y se sugiere, entre otros aspectos, que los criterios y teorías del daño existentes en la jurisprudencia del CADE (Consejo Administrativo de Defensa Económica) deben ser mejorados y adaptados para analizar la competencia en relación con esas prácticas. Esto es válido, por ejemplo, para el tipo clásico (o “puro”) de lo que la bibliografía académica ha equiparado con la self-preferencing, siendo posible recurrir a una adaptación de la posición del CADE sobre la Doctrina de las Facilidades Esenciales (Essential Facilities Doctrine - EFD, por sus siglas en inglés). Argumentamos que la prueba de esencialidad no debe ser abandonada por completo, ya que representa una división relevante entre distintos tipos de selfpreferencing, con importantes implicaciones para su aplicación. Presentamos también el esquema inicial de una prueba jurídica adaptada para evaluar la esencialidad.

https://doi.org/10.29263/lar11.2023.04
HTML (English)
PDF (English)

Citas

ACM, “ACM: Apple changes unfair conditions, allows alternative payment methods in dating apps,” available at: https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-apple-changes-unfair-conditions-allows-alternative-payments-methods-dating-apps, accessed 08.09.2022.

AGCM, “A528 - Italian Competition Authority: Amazon fined over €1.128 billion for abusing its dominant position”, available at: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2021/12/A528, accessed 08.09.2022.

Ahlbon, Christian; Leslie, Will; O’riley, Eoin, Self-Preferencing: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle, v. 3, n. 2, 2020.

Athayde, Amanda. Direito da concorrência e supermercados: como essas plataformas de dois lados podem trazer riscos aos consumidores? Revista Direito GV, v. 16, n. 1, jan./abr.2020.

Binotto, Anna; Kastrup, Gustavo, Old tools for new problems? - what can be learned from recent decisions in the Google Shopping case, Revista de Direito e Novas Tecnologias, v. 10, 2021.

Bostoen, Friso. The General Court’s Google Shopping Judgment Finetuning the Legal Qualifications and Tests for Platform Abuse. In: Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 2, March 2022, Pages 75–86, 2022.

Bougette, Patrice; Budzinski, Oliver; Marty, Frédéric M., Self-Preferencing and Competitive Damages: A Focus on Exploitative Abuses, Forthcoming in the Antitrust Bulletin, GREDEG Working Paper No. 2022-01, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4028770 or http://dx. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4028770, accessed 31.08.2022.

Bouzoraa, Yasmine, Between Substance and Autonomy: Finding Legal Certainty in Google Shopping, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, v. 13, n. 2, p. 144 - 153, 2022.

CMA, “Investigation into Amazon’s Marketplace,” available at: https://www.gov.uk/cmacases/investigation-into-amazons-marketplace, accessed 08.09.2022.

Colomo, Pablo Ibanez, Self-Preferencing: Yet Another Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, World Competition, v. 43, n. 4, p. 417, 2020.

___ Pablo Ibanez, Anticompetitive Effects in EU Competition Law, Journal of Corporation Law & Economics, v. 17, n. 2, p. 309 - 363, 2021, p. 315 - 323.

Cordeiro, Alexandre. Essential facility doctrine: A dificuldade de enquadrar casos na doutrina diante da assimetria de informação. In: Jota, 2017.

Cotter, Thomas F. Essential Facilities Doctrine. University of Minnesota Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 08-18, 2008.

Coutinho, Diogo R.; Kira, Beatriz, Adjusting the lens: new theories of harm for digital platforms, Revista de Defesa da Concorrência, v. 9, n. 1, 2021.

Crémer, Jacques; Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre de; Schweitzer, Heike, Competition Policy for the Digital Era: Final Report.

Da Silveira, Paulo Burnier; Fernandes, Victor Oliveira, Google Shopping in Brazil: Highlights of CADE’s Decision and Takeaways for Digital Economy Issues, 2019.

Deutscher, Elias, Google Shopping and the Quest for a Legal Test for Self-Preferencing Under Article 102 TFEU, European Papers, v. 6, n. 3, p. 1345 - 1361, 2021.

Eben, Magali, Fining Google: a missed opportunity for legal certainty? European Competition Journal, v. 14, n. 1, pp. 129 - 151, 2018.

Epic Games, “Australia Free Fortnite,” available at: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en- US/news/epic-games-files-legal-proceedings-against-google-in-australia

Fernandes, Victor Oliveira. Direito da Concorrência das Plataformas Digitais: entre abuso de poder econômico e inovação. Revista dos Tribunais, 2022.

Frazão, Ana de Oliveira. Direito da Concorrência: Pressupostos e Perspectivas. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2017.

Gonçalves, Priscila Brolio, A obrigatoriedade de contratar como sanção fundada no direito concorrencial brasileiro, PhD, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2008.

Heinz, Silke, Self-Preferencing - Some Observations on the Push for Legislation at the National Level in Germany, Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle, v. 3, n. 2, 2020.

Hoffman, Bruce. Shinn, Garrett, Self-Preferencing and Antitrust: Harmful Solutions for an Improbable Problem, available at: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/cpi-- hoffman--final-pdf.pdf, accessed 07.09.2022.

Brazilian Institute for Studies on Competition, Consumption, and International Trade - IBRAC. Unilateral Conduct Guide, 2021, available at: https://ibrac.org.br/UPLOADS/Eventos/497/IBRAC_-_Guia_de_Condutas_Unilaterais.pdf.

G7. Compendium of approaches to improving competition in digital markets, 2021, available at: https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2021/nov/Compendium.pdf, accessed 08.09.2022.

Lee, Sangyun, Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2021 - Korea, Kluwer Competition Law Blog, available at: http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2022/02/14/main-developments-in-competition-law-and-policy-2021-korea/, accessed 03.09.2022.

Lombardi, Claudio, The Italian Competition Authority’s Decision in the Amazon Logistics Case: Self-preferencing and Beyond, available at: https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-italian-competition-authoritys-decision-in-the-amazon-logistics-case-self-preferencingand-beyond/.

Mason, Max. “Apple and Google hit with class actions by Australian app users,” available at: https://www.afr.com/technology/apple-and-google-hit-with-class-actions-by-australian-appusers-20220629-p5axpb, accessed 08.09.2022.

Padilla, Jorge; Perkins, Joe; Piccolo, Salvatore, Self-Preferencing in Markets with Vertically-Integrated Gatekeeper Platforms, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance, v. Working Paper No. 582, 2020.

Pargendler, Mariana, The Corporate Governance Obsession, Journal of Corporation Law, v. 42, 2016.

Petit, Nicolas. Theories of Self-Preferencing under Article 102 TFEU: A Reply to Bo Vesterdorf, Competition Law & Policy Debate, 1, 2015, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2592253, accessed 05.09.2022.

Picker, Randy, Structural Separation and Self-Preferencing: What are the Right Lessons of History? Pro Market, 2020.

Salinger, Michael A., Self-Preferencing, The GAI Report on the Digital Economy, 2020.

Salomão Filho, Calixto. Direito Concorrencial. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2013.

Vesterdorf, Bo. Theories of Self-Preferencing and Duty do Deal - two sides of the same coin?, Competition Law & Policy Debate, Volume 1 (1), 2015, p. 4-9, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2561355, accessed 08.09.2022.