Lack of Effective Control on Killer Acquisitions in the Big Tech Market under EU Framework: Rethinking of EUMR Rules?

Öz

Antitrust enforcement comprises a wide body of rules to control undertakings operating in specific markets. This study examines whether any rethinking of the EU Merger Regulation rules is required to capture transactions escaping antitrust scrutiny, also referred to as “killer acquisitions” where large incumbents buy out innovative start-ups with the principal incentive to pre-empt competition restraint in the future. Existing measures aim to exercise a sort of control for acquisitions that fly under the antitrust radar and fall short of addressing and preventing “killer” intentions occurring in specific product and service markets. It will further call for reform on the approach that competition authorities take while reviewing merger filings to adjust the tools for a better fit to scrutinize such killing strategies which would potentially result in harmful effects to the innovative market structure and eventually to consumer welfare. With the new generation of products in the digital markets, the traditional rules of competition law might fall short of effective solutions. Once given the theoretical background and the measures adopted at the Member State level and recent calls for strengthening competition law tools at the EU level, we aim to demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing rules to address the need for closer scrutiny over the tech giants, i.e., the GAFAM five, and we suggest adapted tools to ensure fair competition.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Killer acquisitions
• big tech
• mergers & acquisitions
• European Union Merger Regulation (EUMR)

Big Tech Marketlerdeki Öldürücü Devralmalarda Yetersiz Denetim: AB Birleşme & Devralma Tüzüğünün Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Rekabet hukuku belirli pazarlarda faaliyet gösteren teşebbüsleri kontrol etmeye yönelik geniş bir kurallar bütününden oluşur. Bu çalışma rekabet denetiminden kaçırılan ve aynı zamanda “öldürücü devralmalar” olarak bilinen, büyük işletmelerin yenilikçi girişimleri (start-up) sadece pazar dışı bırakmayı ve bilhassa gelecekteki bir rekabeti ön almayı amaçlayan devralma hareketlerini kontrol altına almak adına AB Birleşme-Devralma Tüzüğü kurallarının yeniden düşünülmesinin gerekli olup olmadığını tartışmaktadır. Rekabet denetimi radarının altında kalan ve belirli mal ve hizmet sektörlerinde oluşturulan bu “öldürücü” nitelikteki devralmalar ile bunların önlenmesine karşı mevcut düzenlemeler yetersiz kalmaktadır. Çalışma aynı zamanda yenilikçi pazar ortamı yapısına ve nihayet tüketicilerin refahı üzerinde muhtemel zararlı etkilere yol açabilecek bu öldürücü stratejilere karşı yerel rekabet otoritelerince birleşme-devralma izinlerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabilecek yeni yöntemlere işaret edecektir. Dijital pazarlardaki yeni nesil ürünler karşısında geleneksel kurallar etkin çözümlerin gerisinde kalabilir. Teorik arka plan, AB üye devletler düzeyinde alınan önlemler ve son dönemde rekabet hukuku araçlarının güçlendirilmesi yönündeki AB düzeyindeki çağrılara yer verildikten sonra halihazırdaki mevzuatın teknoloji devleri, örneğin GAFAM beşlisi, üzerinde yakından bir takibin ne denli eksik kaldığı gösterilecek ve adil bir rekabet ortamı için önerilerde bulunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öldürücü devralmalar
• teknoloji devleri
• birleşme & devralmalar
• Avrupa Birliği Birleşme-Devralmalar Tüzüğü (EUMR)

Kaynakça

1. Argentesi E and others, ‘Merger Policy in Digital Markets: An Ex-Post Assessment’ (2019) 7985 Cesifo Working Papers 1-43. google scholar
2. Bryan K and Hovenkamp E, ‘Startup Acquisitions, Error Costs, And Antitrust Policy’ (2020) 87(2) University of Chicago Law Review 331-356. google scholar
3. Cabral LMB, ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: Dominant Firms and Innovation Incentives’ (2018) CEPR Discussion Paper . google scholar
4. Caffara C, Crawford GS and Valetti T, ‘“How Tech Rolls”: Potential Competition and “Reverse” Killer Acquisitions’ (2020) 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 13-18. google scholar
5. Cunningham, Colleen and Ederer, Florian and Ma, Song, ‘Killer Acquisitions’ 2021) Journal of Political Economy, 129(3) 649-702. google scholar
6. d’Udekem B, Mathur D and Van Audenrode M, ‘Remember Stacker? Another Look at “Killer” Acquisitions in the Digital Economy’ (2020) 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 38-42. google scholar
7. de Lamo DP, ‘Assessing “Killer Acquisitions”: An Assets and Capabilities-Based View of the Start-Up’ (2020) 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 50-59. google scholar
8. Evans DS and Schmalensee R, ‘Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis In Dynamically Competitive Industries’ (2001) 8268 NBER Working Paper Series 1-50. google scholar

9. Geroski PA, ‘Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets’ (2003) 3(3) Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 151-166. google scholar
10. Grise J, Burns D and Giordano E, ‘The No Kill Zone: The Other Side of Pharma Acquisitions’ 2020 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 19-25. google scholar
11. Kamepalli SK, Rajan R and Zingales L, ‘Kill Zone’ (2021) (2020-19) Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper . google scholar
12. Latham O, Tecu I and Bagaria N, ‘Beyond Killer Acquisitions: Are There More Common Potential Competition Issues in Tech Deals and How Can These Be Assessed?’ 2020 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 26-37. google scholar
13. Levy N, Mostyn H and Buzatu B, ‘Reforming EU Merger Control to Capture “Killer Acquisitions” - the Case for Caution’ (2020) 19 Competition Law Journal 51-671. google scholar
14. Limarzi KC and Philips HRS, ‘“Killer Acquisitions,” Big Tech, and Section 2: A Solution in Search of a Problem’ (2020) 2(2) Antitrust Chronicle 7-12. google scholar
15. Lofaro A, Lewis S and Abecasis P, ‘An Innovation in Merger Assessment: The European Commission’s Novel Theory ofHarm in the Dow/DuPont Merger’ (2017) 32(1) Antitrust 100-106. google scholar
16. Madl AC, ‘Killing Innovation?: Antitrust Implications of Killer Acquisitions’ (2020) 38 Yale Journal of Regulation Bulletin 28-52. google scholar
17. Ottaviani M and Wickelgren AL, ‘Ex Ante or Ex Post Competition Policy? A Progress Report’ (2011) 29(3) International Journal of Industrial Organization 356-359. google scholar
18. Philips GM and Zhdanov A, ‘R&D and The Incentives From Merger and Acquisition Activity, National Bureau of Economic Research’ (2012) Working Paper 18346 accessed 29 December 2020. google scholar
19. Smejkal V, ‘Concentrations in Digital Sector - A New EU Antitrust Standard for “Killer Acquisitions” Needed?’ (2020) 7(2) Journal for International and European Law, Economics and Market Integrations 1-16. google scholar
20. Autorite de la concurrence, ‘Contribution de l’Autorite de La Concurrence Au Debat Sur La Po1itique de Concurrence et Les EnjeuxNumeriques’ (2019) accessed 27 February 2021. google scholar
21. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Digital Platform Inquiry Report’ (2019) accessed 28 December 2020. google scholar
22. Bourreau M and de Streel A, ‘Big Tech Acquisitions: Competition & Innovation Effects and EU Merger Control’ (2020) accessed 15 February 2021. google scholar
23. Furman J and others, ‘Unlocking Digital Competition’ (2019) accessed 15 December 2020. google scholar
24. Lear, ‘Ex-Post Assessment of Merger Control Decisions in Digital Market’ (2019) accessed 15 December 2020. google scholar
25. Montjoye Y-A de, Schwitzer H and Cremer J, ‘Competition in the Era of Digitisation’ (2019) . google scholar
26. OECD ‘Start-Ups, Killer Acquisitions and Merger Control’ (2020) accessed 3 February 2021. google scholar
27. Stigler Committee, ‘Digital Platforms’ (2019) accessed 28 December 2020. google scholar
28. Declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.7932 - Dow/DuPont) European Commission Decision C(2017) [1946]. google scholar
29. Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L088. google scholar
30. European Commission, 2020/0374 (COD) of 15 December 2020 on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act) . google scholar
31. European Commission, Communication on ‘Commission Guidance on the application of the referral mechanism set out in Article 22 of the Merger Regulation to certain categories of cases’ C(2021) 1959 [2021] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2021_merger_control/guidance_ article_22_referrals.pdf. google scholar
32. European Commission, ‘Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2008/C 265/07)’ . google scholar
33. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and others v. Mallinckrodt Ard Inc. (Questcor Pharmaceuticals) (2017) 1:17-cv-00120. google scholar
34. Google/DoubleClick (COMP/M.4731) European Commission decision C(2008) 927 [2008]. google scholar
35. Facebook/WhatsApp (COMP/M.7217) European Commission decision C(82014)7239 [2014]. google scholar
36. Post Denmark II (C-23/14) EU Commission Decision C-2015/651 [2015]. google scholar
37. Tomra (C-549/10) EU Commission Decision C-549/10P [2012]. google scholar
38. United States v. Microsoft (2001) 253 F.3d 34, (D.C. Cir.). google scholar
39. Brouwer Frederick, ‘EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions’ (Stibbe, 01.10.2020) accessed 01.03.2021. google scholar
40. Ashurst ‘Competition policy in the digital era: a comparative guide’ (2019) accessed 05.01.2021. google scholar
41. European Commission, ‘The future of EU merger control’ (2020) accessed 29.04.2021. google scholar
42. Gautier A and Lamesch J, ‘Mergers in the Digital Economy’ (2020) CESifo Working Paper 8056, accessed 9 February 2021. google scholar
43. Geradin D, ‘What is a digital gatekeeper’ (The Platform Law Blog, 5 October 2020) accessed 27 February 2021. google scholar
44. Janith Aranze, ‘DG Comp chief economist: Reverse burden of proof to catch killer acquisitions’ (GCR, 20 November 2018) accessed 15.11.2020. google scholar
45. Jeremie Marthan and others, ‘Latest developments on the Article 22 EUMR referral mechanism: the only thing that’s certain is the uncertainty’ (White & Case, 30 April 2021) accessed 14.05.2021. google scholar
46. Kris Van Hove, ‘Revising the Competition Law Rulebook for Digital Markets in Europe: A Delicate Balancing Act’ (Competition Policy International, 2020) accessed 10 December 2019. google scholar
47. Kyriakos Fountoukakos and others ‘Commission publishes guidance on Article 22 referrals for transactions falling below national thresholds - New approach can impact pharma, tech and other deals involving start-ups or innovators’ (Herbert Smith Freehills, 1 April 2021) accessed 14.05.2021. google scholar
48. U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n, ‘FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization’ (FTC, 9 December 2020) accessed l0.01.2021 google scholar
49. U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n, ‘FTC to Examine Past Acquisitions by Large Technology Companies’ (FTC, 11 February 2020) accessed 30.11.2020. google scholar
50. European Commission, ‘Statistics on Merger cases’ accessed 02.03.2021. google scholar
51. Tim Wu and Stuart A. Thompson, ‘The Roots of Big Tech Run Disturbingly Deep’ (NYTimes, 7 June 2019) accessed 25 November 2020. google scholar