Anti-monopoly Law Regulation Of Big Data "killing" Behavior

Big data "affinity" behaviors are derived from personalized pricing behaviors,which are widely used in transportation,e-ticketing,online shopping,online tourism and other transaction fields.Among them,price discrimination behaviors combined with big data and algorithms have infringements on consumer rights and interests.The serious harm of disrupting the fair competition order in the market shall be regulated by the "Anti-Monopoly Law".It has become a common practice for countries around the world to apply anti-monopoly regulations and big data to "affinity".The European Union has adopted anti-price discrimination legislation and used evidence discovery to promote anti-monopoly civil litigation.Germany has transferred the burden of proof to enterprises in anti-monopoly law enforcement to promote them.For self-correction,the United States has set up a triple damage compensation system in the antitrust law to protect the interests of the injured party,and conduct technical supervision in conjunction with algorithm-specific regulations."Anti-Monopoly Law" currently regulates big data "affinity" from legislation,law enforcement,and justice.At the legislative level,the provisions of Article 17,Paragraph 1,Item 6 of the Anti-Monopoly Law prohibit differential treatment,and the Anti-Monopoly Guidelines of the Anti-Monopoly Commission of the State Council on the Platform Economy Field have determined the identification of differential treatment in the platform economy.At the law enforcement level,the State Administration for Market Regulation,the Central Cyberspace Administration of China,and the Ministry of Public Security have launched special rectifications on the illegal collection and use of personal information to reduce the potential risks of "affinity" with big data.At the judicial level,the judicial practice experience of Internet anti-monopoly private litigation continues to accumulate.The Supreme People's Court No.79 Guiding Case provides guidance for Internet anti-monopoly civil litigation cases,and the identification of differential treatment has also been enriched in practice.The current anti-monopoly laws and regulations for big data "affinity" have the following difficulties.The main problems are the vague definition of the Internet industry related market,the conservative factors in determining the dominant position of the market,the divergence in the application of justified defenses,and the imperfect anti-monopoly private litigation system.This makes the protection of fair market competition and the maintenance of consumer rights challenged.Therefore,it is necessary to combine existing regulatory foundations and learn from the effective regulatory experience outside the territory to provide institutional recommendations on anti-monopoly regulations for big data "affinity" behaviors.On the legislative approach,respond to the challenges of data algorithms in defining relevant markets and identifying market dominance;in law enforcement supervision,strengthen the dynamic supervision of data algorithms to coordinate law enforcement and improve administrative supervision;in judicial application,improve anti-monopoly the legal private litigation system complements the anti-monopoly law enforcement.Finally,it is necessary to strengthen the connection between the "Anti-Monopoly Law" and other departmental laws to form a reasonable and effective regulation system for big data "affinity" behavior.