Dr. Klaus Wiedemann

Books and Monographs

Rechtliche Implikationen Profiling-basierter Preispersonalisierung (Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, 20), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2023, XV + 317 pp. DOI

• Dieses Open-Access-Buch untersucht, inwieweit Anbieter im Online-Vertrieb das technische Erkenntnisverfahren Profiling zum Zwecke der Preispersonalisierung einsetzen und welche rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen dabei gelten. Preispersonalisierung liegt vor, wenn der Preis für ein Gut oder eine Dienstleistung an die Zahlungsbereitschaft des einzelnen Kunden angepasst wird. Dafür ist u.a. die zielgerichtete Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten notwendig. Preispersonalisierung unterscheidet sich damit von dynamischen Preissetzungsmethoden, die bloßer Ausdruck von Angebot und Nachfrage sind. Entgegen weitverbreiteter Einschätzung kommen personalisierte Preise (noch) äußerst selten vor: Technische und wettbewerbliche Hindernisse schränken den Handlungsspielraum der Anbieter ein. Hinzu kommt, dass die individuelle Zahlungsbereitschaft situationsabhängig und oftmals irrational ist. Auch der Betroffene kann sie nicht immer konkret beziffern.
  Der Schwerpunkt dieser wirtschaftsrechtlichen Untersuchung liegt auf dem Datenschutz- und dem Antidiskriminierungsrecht. Sie berücksichtigt zugleich wettbewerbs- und verbraucherschutzrechtliche Aspekte. Zudem entwickelt sie ein 3-stufiges Modell, welches einen eigenständigen methodischen Ansatz darstellt. Dies macht es möglich, Lebenssachverhalte im Kontext von Profiling und automatisierten Entscheidungen zu strukturieren und so einer rechtlichen Bewertung zugänglich zu machen. Die Untersuchung greift umfassend auf andere Disziplinen zurück, indem sie u.a. ökonomische, technische, empirische und psychologische Erkenntnisse berücksichtigt.
  Das Buch untersucht, wie datenbasiertes Profiling und automatisierte Entscheidungen funktionieren, funktional miteinander zusammenhängen und reguliert sind. Im Anschluss analysiert es, wie Profiling genutzt werden kann, um im Online-Handel Preise zu personalisieren. Schließlich behandelt es die Frage, ob das geltende materielle Recht ausreichende Schutzmechanismen gegen Diskriminierung bereithält, die aus der Zugehörigkeit zu geschützten Gruppen resultiert und in einer systematischen preislichen Schlechterstellung zum Ausdruck kommt.

Journal Articles

Zur Zulässigkeit personalisierter Preise: Datenschutz- und Antidiskriminierungsrecht als Teil des modernen Wirtschaftsrechts, WRP 70, 3 (2024), 296 - 305.

• https://online.ruw.de/suche/wrp/Zur-Zulaess-personali-Preise-Datensc--undAntidiskr-bef11ecd777c270ca130a48ab2bebc52

Datenschutz- und Kartellrecht auf Facebook und andernorts – Anmerkung zu EuGH in Sachen Meta Platforms u.a./Bundeskartellamt, NZKart - Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 11, 11 (2023), 601 - 604.

Profiling and (Automated) Decision-Making under the GDPR: A Two-Step Approach, Computer Law & Security Review 2022, 11.03.2022. DOI

• This paper examines profiling and decision-making under the GDPR and analyses how these two processes are interconnected. The GDPR's definition of profiling is analysed and put in relation to both automated and human decision-making. This contribution works with a two-step approach. It can be derived from the structure and wording of the GDPR and provides for an enhanced level of legal certainty. Within this approach, profiling is considered to be step 1 and decision-making to be step 2. The two steps are treated as distinct, yet logically interconnected. This helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted. It makes it possible to identify the legal implications of these two steps and to allocate who is legally responsible, no matter how many parties are involved. The approach might be particularly helpful in the context of joint controllership, as it makes it possible to delineate whether joint controllership is given in the first place and to allocate the respective responsibilities of the parties concerned. Profiling (step 1) leads to implications of primary relevance for the data subjects’ right to the protection of personal data. Decision-making (step 2) regularly does not lead to such data protection implications but is primarily relevant from a personal autonomy and (economic) freedom perspective. A notable exception is the rare scenario of solely automated decision-making falling under Art. 22(1) GDPR. The two-step approach is eventually applied to a use case that concerns profiling and automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring conducted by a social network.

Data Protection and Competition Law Enforcement in the Digital Economy: Why a Coherent and Consistent Approach is Necessary, IIC 52, 7 (2021), 915 - 933. DOI

• This contribution argues that a coherent and consistent interpretation of data protection and competition law is both possible and adequate. To illustrate this need, the ongoing abuse-of-dominance investigation by the French Autorité de la Concurrence against Apple is analysed. Representatives of the online advertising industry lodged a complaint against the introduction of Apple’s “App Tracking Transparency framework”. The latter includes a de facto obstacle to third-party tracking which shuts down advertisers’ access to those precious personal data that can be used for online advertising. With the Apple case in mind and by way of example, this paper argues that the regulation of consent to the processing of personal data under the GDPR serves as a dogmatic link between data protection and competition law, as this legal basis is at the heart of many digital business models. The GDPR provides a normative framework to determine when consent has been “freely given”. This can be a fruitful starting point for a competitive assessment, too, as both legal regimes pursue the objective of protecting consumer autonomy and consumer choice. The paper finishes by finding that its dogmatic approach corresponds to recent developments within competition law legislation and enforcement.

Zum Zusammenspiel von Datenschutzrecht und Kartellrecht in der Digitalökonomie, Computer und Recht 37, 6 (2021), 425 - 432.

Zur kartellrechtlichen Bewertung der Datenverarbeitung durch Facebook und ihrer normativen Kohärenz mit dem Datenschutzrecht und dem Datenschuldrecht – Zugleich Besprechung von BGH, Beschluss vom 23.6.2020 – KVR 69/19 – Facebook (ZUM 2020, 863), ZUM 65, 2 (2021), 89 - 103 (together with Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt).

Personenbezogene Daten als vertragliche Gegenleistung im Sinne der Richtlinie (EU) 2019/770: Welche Rolle spielen die DSGVO und die ePrivacy-Verordnung im digitalen Verbrauchervertragsrecht?, GRUR Newsletter 10, 2 (2020), 23 - 25.

• http://www.grur.org/uploads/media/2020-02-GRUR_Newsletter.pdf

To Discriminate or Not to Discriminate? Personalised Pricing in Online Markets as Exploitative Abuse of Dominance, European Journal of Law and Economics 50 (2020), 381 - 404 (together with Marco Botta). DOI

• The advent of big data analytics has favoured the emergence of forms of price discrimination based on consumers’ profiles and their online behaviour (i.e. personalised pricing). The paper analyses this practice as a possible exploitative abuse by dominant online platforms. The paper argues that, in view of its “mixed” effect on consumers’ welfare, personalised pricing requires a case-by-case assessment under EU competition law and thus it should not be banned a priori. However, in view of the recent case law of the European Court of Justice on price discrimination, the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the European Commission would face a high burden of proof to sanction this conduct under Art. 102(c) TFEU. Finally, the paper argues that, due to its case-by-case approach, competition law seems more suitable than omnibus regulation to tackle the negative effects that personalised pricing could have on consumers’ welfare. In particular, an NCA/the European Commission could negotiate with online platforms different kinds of behavioural commitments: transparency requirements, limits on data collection/user profiling, rights to opt out of personalised pricing and the obligation to share customers’ data with competitors could significantly tame the risks of personalised pricing.

Exploitative Conducts in Digital Markets: Time for a Discussion after the Facebook Decision, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10, 8 (2019), 465 - 478 (together with Marco Botta). DOI

The Interaction of EU Competition, Consumer, and Data Protection Law in the Digital Economy: The Regulatory Dilemma in the Facebook Odyssey, The Antitrust bulletin 64, 3 (2019), 428 - 446 (together with Marco Botta). DOI

• This article analyzes the interaction of EU competition, consumer and data protection law in the digital economy. We compare the objectives, rules and enforcement structures of these legal regimes, and we discuss market failures that justify regulatory intervention in digital markets. In particular, the Facebook investigations in Germany and Italy are selected as a case study. The Bundeskartellamt’s investigations are remarkable, being the first in which an exploitative abuse of dominance involving a digital platform has been decided under competition law. These we compare with their Italian counterpart, where the AGCM has recently sanctioned Facebook for behavior similar to that investigated in Germany. Yet, the Italian case has been decided under consumer, rather than competition law. This shows the regulatory dilemma faced by European antitrust authorities, which are currently struggling to find a solution to the market failures arising in digital markets.

Zwischen Berufsfreiheit und Ausbildungsmonopol – rechtliche Vorgaben für den Wechsel des Bundeslandes als Rechtsreferendar, JURA – Juristische Ausbildung 38, 6 (2016), 674 - 685 (together with Lars Dittrich). DOI

European Meat Inspection – Continuity and Change in Building a (more) Risk-Based System of Regulation, European Food and Feed Law Review 6, 2 (2011), 96 - 103 (together with James Lawless).

Case notes

A Matter of Choice: The German Federal Supreme Court’s Interim Decision in the Abuse-of-Dominance Proceedings Bundeskartellamt v. Facebook (Case KVR 69/19), IIC 51, 9 (2020), 1168 - 1181. DOI

The ECJ’s Decision in "Planet49" (Case C-673/17): A Cookie Monster or Much Ado About Nothing?, IIC 51 (2020), 543 - 553. DOI

• In "Planet49", the ECJ ruled that a pre-selected checkbox on a website (which the user must actively deselect to refuse consent) does not constitute valid consent under data protection law. In this context, the Court also provided guidance on the extent of the existing informational duties. It furthermore found that it does not make a difference with respect to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive whether or not information that is stored or accessed on the terminal device of a user constitutes personal data. The majority of these findings is not surprising and in accordance with the values underlying today’s data protection and privacy regulations. Unfortunately, the ECJ failed to address the role Art. 7(2) GDPR plays for online declarations referring to both consent and other matters. It thus missed a valuable opportunity to provide further clarity on how consent can be given in a way that is compliant with data protection regulations and user-friendly at the same time. Unfortunately, the Court was not asked to show a way out of the dogmatic Gordian knot arising from the German Telemedia Act, parts of which are still in clear contradiction to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive.

Reviews

Review of: Sarah Zinndorf: Internetsuchmaschinen in der unionskartellrechtlichen Missbrauchskontrolle. Eine juristisch-ökonomische Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der vertikalen Integration eigener Dienste und Inhalte. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020. 453 S. ISBN: 978-3-8487-4495-4, Common Market Law Review 58, 6 (2021), 1926 - 1928.

• https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/58.6/COLA2021121

Review of: Maria Cristina Caldarola / Joachim Schrey: Big Data and Law. A Practitioner's Guide. CH Beck, Hart, Nomos, München, Oxford, Baden-Baden 2020, XXII, 178 S. ISBN 978-3-406-74393-1, GRUR Int 70, 2 (2021), 210 - 211. DOI

Research Papers

Can Data Protection Friendly Conduct Constitute an Abuse of Dominance under Art. 102 TFEU? (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 23-15), 2023, 34 pp.

• This chapter analyses whether data protection friendly conduct can infringe Art. 102 TFEU. Despite their differences, both legal regimes share at least three objectives, inter alia protection of competition. This allows for a holistic approach, taking into account competition policy and data protection considerations. The paper argues that the key question is which economic effects a specific conduct has. One must differentiate three scenarios accordingly. The first scenario is that data protection friendly conduct has pro-competitive (or neutral) effects. In such cases, an abuse of dominance is precluded. The second is that conduct is strictly mandated by data protection law. To the extent that a company has no choice but to follow the data protection regulation it cannot be blamed for anti-competitive effects of this conduct. The third scenario is that a market-dominant company invokes data protection as a justification for anti-competitive conduct. Here, a careful proportionality test is necessary.
• Available at SSRN

EU Competition Law Enforcement Vis-À-Vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy Exploring the Terra Incognita (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 18-08), 2018, 90 pp. (together with Marco Botta).

• This paper analyses the enforcement of EU competition law vis-à-vis exploitative conducts by dominant online platforms. Firstly, it looks at the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning excessive and discriminatory pricing, as well as unfair contract clauses under Art. 102 TFEU. Afterwards, the challenges faced by National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the EU Commission in investigating exploitative conducts in data markets are discussed with a view to the CJEU case law. Finally, the paper looks at potential remedies that NCAs and the EU Commission could design in relation to exploitative conducts in data markets. The paper does not discuss the definition of the relevant market and the issue of market power of online platforms. It is argued that the data economy is characterized by a number of market failures that, in principle, justify EU competition policy intervention. Contrary to a view expressed in the literature, the authors argue that EU competition law should be enforced in digital markets, in spite of the overlaps with data protection and consumer law. In particular, it is argued that these three policy areas pursue different goals, have different scopes of application and different enforcement structures. Consequently, in spite of their “family ties”, one policy area should not prevent the enforcement of the others. At the same time, the authors recognize that – in view of the CJEU case law – Art. 102 TFEU should only be enforced vis-à-vis exploitative conducts in exceptional circumstances – i.e. in relation to “super dominant” online platforms and in markets characterized by high and stable entry barriers. Secondly, the paper argues that in view of the existing CJEU case law on excessive and discriminatory pricing, the NCAs and the EU Commission would face a very high burden of proof to sanction these practices in data markets. At the same time, the enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU might indeed be expected as regards unfair contractual terms. The current investigations by the Bundeskartellamt in the Facebook case and the recent Facebook/WhatsApp merger case could indicate a new enforcement trend to this regard. Finally, in terms of remedies, the paper argues in view of the lack of precedents in this area that NCAs and the EU Commission should conclude behavioural commitments with dominant online platforms, rather than imposing financial penalties coupled with cease and desist orders. In particular, when designing these remedies, the NCAs and the EU Commission should take into consideration the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in order to fill the gaps in the current regulatory system via behavioural commitments.
• Available at SSRN

Automated Processing of Personal Data for the Evaluation of Personality Traits: Legal and Ethical Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 18-04), 2018, 34 pp.

• This paper examines the approach under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to profiling and (automated) decision-making as well as the corresponding legal and ethical implications. The definition of profiling under the GDPR is analysed in relation to different degrees of automation when it comes to decision-making based on the processing of personal or non-personal data. A two-step approach to profiling and decision-making, which can be found in the structure and wording of the GDPR, is described and analysed. It is argued that the use of this model helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted and how the two steps are interconnected. Furthermore, the two-step approach allows to identify various legal implications of profiling and the corresponding decision-making, such as those related to privacy and economic freedom. Further, the discussion of ethical aspects draws on two recent and controversial use cases. The first example deals with discriminatory effects that may result from profiling. The second one concerns opaque automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring. This ethical assessment is based on the ethical framework supplied by the wording of the GDPR.
• Available at SSRN

Opinions

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 May 2022 on the Commission's Proposal of 23 February 2022 for a Regulation on Harmonised Rules on Fair Access to and Use of Data (Data Act), 2022, 124 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

• On 23 February 2022, the European Commission issued a Proposal for a Regulation on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act). The overarching objective of the Proposal is to ‘ensure fairness in the digital environment, stimulate a competitive data market, open opportunities for data-driven innovation and make data available for all’. The Institute hereby presents its Position Statement that features a comprehensive analysis of whether and to what extent the proposed rules might reach the envisaged objectives. It comments on all parts of the Proposal, including the new IoT data access and use right. Finally, the Institute offers a set of recommendations as to how the proposed provisions should be amended in the legislative process to align them better with the objectives of the Data Act.
• Position_Statement_MPI_Data_Act_Formal__13.06.2022.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 22-05

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate, 2021, 26 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

• This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable.
• MPI_PositionPaper__SSRN_21-10.pdf
• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-10

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

• WIPO AI Draft Issue Paper_Comments_Max Planck.pdf

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

• This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
• MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
• Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of August 16, 2016 - On the current debate on exclusive rights and access rights to data at the European level, 2016, 12 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

• Also published in GRUR Int under the title: Ausschließlichkeits- und Zugangsrechte an Daten - Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 16.8.2016 zur aktuellen europäischen Debatte, GRUR Int 65,10 (2016), 914 - 918
• This position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has been released against the background of the European Free Flow of Data Initiative of the European Commission and the on-going political, economic and academic debate on the related issues. The Institute takes a stance as regards the introduction of exclusive rights in data, special legal protection of algorithms used in data analysis, as well as the questions on the applicability of the current EU legal framework for the sui-generis database rights and trade secrets to individual data and data-sets. The Institute sees no economic justification for the introduction of new exclusive rights in data, which could even hamper the functioning of the data-driven economy. In contrast, the statement emphasizes the importance of access to data in order to ensure the proper functioning of data-driven markets. It identifies the need for further research in this regard and recommends the general approach and principles to be considered if the special regulation of access to data is necessary.
• Positionspaper-Data-Eng-08-31_def-korr Copy.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-10 under the title: Data Ownership and Access to Data - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 16 August 2016 on the Current European Debate

Further Publications, Press Articles, Interviews

'New Directions in the European Union's Innovation Policy?' Report on the Conference of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Collaboration with the MPI Alumni Association in Munich, 9 July 2021, GRUR Int 70, 11 (2021), 1074 - 1078 (together with Klaus Keller, Stefan Scheuerer). DOI