Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Dany H. Assaf is a partner in the Torys LLP Toronto office and is co-chair of the competition and foreign investment review practice.

Francis M. Fryscak is the founder of SecondSight Law and the head of its antitrust practice, based in San Francisco.

More than a century ago, antitrust law was born out of the breakup of Standard Oil and similar steps to rein in the power of the trusts that were choking innovation in critical industries.

Story continues below advertisement

As Big Tech dominates headlines now (Trudeau’s new digital framework, Zuckerberg and Sandberg’s no-show at Parliament and so on – and that’s just domestic news), we ask ourselves if this century of antitrust law will be defined by the breakup of Facebook and the restraining of today’s Rockefellers.

In the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica, hacked e-mails and other Big Data privacy scandals, and calls to “break up” companies such as Facebook, we have all been reminded of a time-honoured lesson – if it’s “free,” the real price tag is usually more than one can afford. Like a mob of shoppers stampeding to a Black Friday sale, after trampling on and over one another for “free” and unlimited digital services, we’re only now asking ourselves exactly what did we buy, and at what cost?

The world is waking up to the real cost of exchanging personal data for a “free” service. Personal data do have a value – a value that, when multiplied, can sway elections, dissolve governments, change everything.

And as we wake up to the realization our data has been commoditized and sold out the backdoor as quickly as it was collected at the front, we’re left to address the generally inadequate levels of data protection which failed to evolve into a necessary pillar of product offerings in the tech sector.

In the absence of the market addressing this problem, antitrust regulators, who generally seek to stay out of the business of having a heavy hand in driving markets, are being asked to address what is broken in the data marketplace.

Traditionally, they acted as the market’s traffic cops, ensuring the free and efficient flow of products in the market, not its firemen. They ensured the roads (markets) were kept open for all cars to drive, while giving their passengers (consumers) decisive authority over where they want to go (the products they demand). Antitrust enforcement doesn’t seek to look beyond what consumers are demanding and consider what consumers should demand.

Through an antitrust lens, perhaps the data market is really no different to any other. Leaving aside the many ways that antitrust enforcers are getting pulled in new directions as privacy police, this aspect of the issue appears to call for antitrust enforcement to simply acknowledge this reality within its traditional framework.

Story continues below advertisement

Fundamentally, data protection as a product feature isn’t that novel of an analytical approach for antitrust regulators to apply. Applying that framework, we see real-time stagnating product quality (insufficient data protection/rights) and increasing price (rising demand for customer data).

The antitrust position is, then, that data protection as a feature of a technology product simply isn’t responding as expected to consumer demand. Why?

Are we witnessing the classic antitrust tale of an exercise of market power by entrenched players who are not truly feeling the bite of competitive market forces?

In many ways, this appears to be exactly what is unfolding – increasing demands for data privacy not being credibly met by providers racing to differentiate on data protection to win market share.

There’s been no meaningful wholesale “privacy feature war” driving competition across the most popular platforms forcing change. Current consumer and market concerns suggest that a more intense, pitched battle on privacy features should be raging.

These market dynamics extend an invitation to antitrust regulators to also approach these issues through the familiar lens of monopsony power, where popular platforms have unrivalled buying power over consumer data (in exchange for their own free offerings).

Story continues below advertisement

With great pools of Big Data concentrated in the hands of a few, questions arise whether monopsony power caused any market distortions.

Antitrust regulators have the tools they need to approach the world’s Big Data woes. How they will approach this problem – it’s perhaps the defining global issue of 21st-century antitrust law – depends very much on how consumers value data and privacy and how the regulators view their consumer welfare mission. Regardless, one thing is clear: Everyone’s free ride is coming to an end.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies