Policy implications of the globalization of competition law -Part 4

Sixth and finally, recent developments around the world indicate that antitrust policies targeting large digital platforms (and perhaps other dominant companies) may be evolving into regulations that are not conducive to consumer welfare. In the past year, the initiatives of the European Union, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and other countries have shown that “digital regulatory patchwork has further magnified the inconsistency and application imbalance between global technology departments and digital market competition mechanisms.” Replacing case-by-case law enforcement with digital competition law may slow down digital innovation, greatly reduce consumer welfare, and harm the economy. In addition, regulation may lead to the "occupation" of regulation by the dominant platform company under regulation. This is an anti-competitive result that will hinder rather than stimulate the entry of competition.

In short, one cannot say with any certainty whether antitrust globalization is "good" or "bad" in economic terms. The beneficial changes are reflected in the cooperation of law enforcement officials in hunting down cartels and coordinating antitrust reviews. Although the benefits obtained through the process of globalization are tangible, they must be recognized based on the established costs that cannot be ignored. The negative impact comes from enforcement errors, transaction costs caused by multiple investigations, abuse of antitrust, and the recent tendency of major law enforcement officers to costly supervision and the neglect of consumer welfare in law enforcement. These thorny issues make net welfare assessment infeasible.