Lilla Nóra Kiss

The EU is at a strategic crossroads when it comes to techno-economic policy. As the new Commission and Parliament take office, they must choose between fidelity to the transatlantic alliance and “strategic independence,” as well as between maintaining regulatory hostility toward large tech companies and unleashing innovation in Europe.

Shifting from evidence-based law enforcement to heavy-handed digital regulation could stifle the innovation Korea needs and lead to various unintended consequences. As the Korean proverb goes, it’s unwise to “burn down the hut to catch a bedbug.”

Proposed changes to Kenya’s competition regime will hinder, not help its digital economy. Rather than impose substantial changes based on the false premise that digital markets require special treatment, Kenya should use existing enforcement tools to police its growing digital markets.

Ex-ante regulation is not only unnecessary in view of Turkey’s growing digital markets, but likely to chill the very innovation it seeks to promote. Through a number of per se bans for behavior that is very often pro-competitive, consumers will be harmed—a fact that is already happening in Europe with its own DMA.

Rather than allow India’s dynamic high-tech and startup ecosystem to continue to flourish, the Draft Digital Competition Bill follows the path of overbearing competition policy taken by the EU, which lacks any leading digital firms. India should instead privilege the U.S. model of markets and dynamism.

Regulation in the digital sector should only be necessary to remedy market failure that cannot be addressed by the current legal framework, which simply is not true.

The artificial intelligence market in Canada is still in its early stages but is growing rapidly and becoming increasingly competitive. At this juncture, there is no clear evidence of market failure, substantial barriers to entry, or exclusionary practices that would necessitate intervention.

As Brazil crafts its own Digital Markets Act in the mold of the EU’s, it should be aware of the potential shortcomings and unsubstantiated advantages associated with such wide-ranging economic regulation within the digital market landscape.

Europe’s digital model may not be the best fit for Brazil. Bill 2768/2022, mirroring the EU’s experimental Digital Markets Act, could potentially hinder innovation rather than ignite it. Brazil’s digital landscape calls for a culture of innovation, not borrowed blueprints of unnecessary intervention.

The market for AR/VR technologies, though nascent, presents a multifaceted competitive landscape spanning hardware, software, and distribution. And the generative AI market is experiencing early-stage growth with no significant entry barriers evident, particularly concerning data, computational resources, and talent.

As the Digital Markets Act comes into effect, more jurisdictions are adopting similar laws to shoot for big tech targets, creating the “Brussels effect.”

Instead of enforcing existing competition laws and investing in its digital industries to promote innovation and healthy dynamic competition in the United Kingdom, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill offers an overly broad and likely harmful solution to unproven problems.

Join us for a lively event hosted by ITIF's Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy, featuring leading antitrust experts from Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the United States.

Lilla Kiss speaks on how the Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024 will impact the digital market ecosystem in India.

Watch now for a timely panel discussion featuring leading antitrust lawyers from India and the United States.

Watch now for a panel discussion featuring experts from the EU, Brazil, Korea, and the United States.