About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

16 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 39 (2019)
The Antitrust Case against Facebook: A Monopolist's Journey towards Pervasive Surveillance in spite of Consumers' Preference for Privacy

handle is hein.journals/berkbusj16 and id is 42 raw text is: THE ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST FACEBOOK: A MONOPOLIST'S JOURNEY TOWARDS PERVASIVE SURVEILLANCE IN SPITE OF CONSUMERS' PREFERENCE FOR PRIVACY Dina Srinivasan* A B S T R A C T ...................................................................................................... 4 0 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................... 40 I. PRIVACY WAS ONCE A CRUCIAL FORM OF COMPETITION ..... 46 II. THE PARADOX OF SURVEILLANCE REFLECTS MONOPOLY P O W E R .......................................................................................... . . 54 A. Pre-Power: Failure of Beacon and Early Misrepresentations ..... 55 B. Pre-Power: More Backtracking and Pattern of Conduct ............... 62 C. Post-Power: Deterioration of the Promise Not to Track ................ 69 1. Facebook Initiates Commercial Surveillance ......................... 70 2. Facebook Leverages Consumer Identity for Stronger Surveillance ...................................................................... . . 73 3. Facebook Circumvents Consumer Attempts to Opt-Out ..... 76 III. INDIRECT EVIDENCE CONFIRMS FACEBOOK'S MONOPOLY P O W E R .................................................................................................. 8 1 IV. FACEBOOK'S PATTERN OF CONDUCT RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT ILLEGAL MONOPOLIZATION ........................................ 90 A. Heightened Scrutiny in Markets with Direct Network Effects .......... 90 B. Pattern of False Statements, Misleading & Deceptive Conduct ........ 92 C. Wider Pattern of False Statements and Misleading Conduct ........ 94 D. Antitrust Hann: Monopoly Rents & Allocative Inefficiency ..... 97 C O N C L U SIO N .......................................................................................... . . 98 * This article arose from my personal observations as an entrepreneur and executive in the digital advertising industry. I am grateful to Fiona Scott Morton, Alvin Klevorick, Michael Kades, Charles Reichmann, and Robert Litan for conversation and feedback at various stages. I extend a warm thank you to George Priest for inspiring an interest in antitrust years ago. I would also like to thank the editors at the University of California, Berkeley Business Law Journal, the journalists and researches who by their own curiosity and work uncovered and reported on many of the facts relied on in this paper, and the University of Chicago for hosting the 2018 Antitrust and Competition Conference: Digital Platforms and Concentration. No party provided any direct or indirect financial support to me during the writing of this article.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most