I have blogged earlier on big tech and the challenge of taxation in the context of the digital tax here and here.
Regulation of big tech, especially in the context of anti-trust (or anti-competition) laws, is a raging issue across continents. There are varying approaches, understanding and results of this regulation by he State. However, the intent to regulate and the desire to implement that regulation is visible across the US, EU and China.
This piece on anti-trust regulation by Anu Bradford captures the varying approaches, results and implications of regulating big tech from different political systems. Comparing the US, EU and China's approach to big tech regulation in the context of anti-trust, including monopolistic tendencies, she concludes:
This relative “success” of the Chinese regulatory model in obtaining compliance from tech companies stands in stark contrast with the repeated difficulties faced by European and American regulators in holding tech companies accountable. In the EU and the US, regulators are often forced to fight lengthy legal battles as tech companies contest, rather than acquiesce to, the regulatory actions targeting them. This makes the Chinese state-driven regulatory model attractive to many other governments that are reluctant to be drawn into these kinds of regulatory battles that the US and EU are struggling to win.
What are the implications of democratic pressures and realities, judicial oversight and rule of law on anti-trust regulation? How should approach regulating big tech in the context of lengthy court battles and difficult enforcement? Are there any "ideal" models of implementing anti-trust? Do democratic institutions and processes impede enforcement or enhance transparency? Is democratic scrutiny and judicial oversight better in the long run than State-led regulation? is there too much regulation? Is there a balance? is there a middle path?
No comments:
Post a Comment