A Study On The Antitrust Regulation Of Algorithmic Price Discrimination

The rapid evolution of the Internet and the rapid development of data technology has driven the rapid emergence of the digital economy,with traditional economic sectors gradually being encroached upon by the digital economy.As a result of the rapid iteration and integration of data technology and market economy activities,algorithmic personalised pricing is now widely used in various online transactions such as transportation,e-ticketing,online shopping and online tourism.The combination of big data and algorithmic personalized pricing has a serious impact on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and the fairness of the market,and should be regulated by national anti-monopoly laws and regulations.At present,the regulation of algorithmic price discrimination is facing some difficulties in the application of laws.The main problems at present are: first,in the identification of relevant markets,due to the failure of traditional methods for defining relevant product markets in the face of bilateral markets under the background of big data,and the difficulties in defining relevant geographical markets under the cross regional commodity circulation of the Internet;Secondly,there are difficulties in determining market dominance.In the context of big data,whether new technologies have a competitive advantage depends on whether users accept and recognize them,which is different from traditional methods of determining market share size.At the same time,due to the non exclusivity of data entry and exit,it is also difficult to determine the difficulty of other industries entering the market;Thirdly,the legal provisions on "identical transaction conditions" are relatively vague and lack corresponding limiting conditions.Therefore,there are difficulties in identifying differential treatment in practice,which cannot meet the needs of complex judicial practice.Fourthly,there are differences in the application of justifiable defenses.The fifth is the difficulty of private litigation under antitrust law.For the above issues,the following countermeasures can be taken to improve:firstly,update the identification methods of the relevant product market.By adjusting the assumptions of SSNIP testing method,profit model testing method,and other different methods to solve the current problem of difficult confirmation of market dominance;Secondly,the identification method of innovative market dominance;Thirdly,by elaborating on how to accurately identify the "same conditions" in the Anti Monopoly Law,we aim to address the issue of unclear provisions on "same conditions" in China’s Anti Monopoly Law,which makes it difficult to apply them in judicial practice;Fourthly,refine the content of justifiable reasons clauses;Finally,in order to better enable the anti monopoly law to play a corresponding regulatory role,we can subdivide the anti monopoly responsibility in China’s judicial practice.Whether it is pre,during,or post regulatory responsibility,it should be improved and implemented to avoid regulatory gaps.