Digital Competition
Digital and Competition Policies for Better Innovation
Analysis
Digital Regulation
The UK Digital Competition Bill: What Should the UK Learn from Europe and Germany?
The United Kingdom regulates competition in digital markets, following similar initiatives in Europe and Germany. It can learn from their compliance experiences and engage in international collaboration to ensure consistency.
May 29, 2024

Christophe Carugati
Founder
Introduction
The United Kingdom addresses competition issues in digital markets with the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers (DMCC) Bill[1]. This law requires large online platforms to follow requirements that promote fairer and more competitive digital markets. Similar initiatives include the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA)[2] and Germany's Section 19a GWB[3]. These laws already impose obligations on large online platforms, and some platforms are currently under investigation for non-compliance[4]. Although each legal framework has distinct objectives and structures, they all aim to regulate the same or very similar global business practices against the same platforms. In this context, the UK can learn from the implementation of European and German laws. Additionally, the European, German, and UK enforcers should engage in international cooperation to ensure a consistent global approach to competition in digital markets.
The UK Bill
The DMCC Bill mandates that large online platforms with Strategic Market Status (SMS) in specific digital activities comply with codes of conduct designed by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Since Professor Jason Furman and his colleagues recommended the bill in 2019[5], the CMA has gained significant experience in digital markets through various market studies, including on online platforms and the digital advertising market[6], and antitrust cases against companies like Google[7], Meta[8], Amazon[9], and Apple[10]. Additionally, the CMA has conducted merger reviews, such as the Microsoft/Activision merger[11].
To support these efforts, the CMA established the Data, Technology and Analytics (DaTA) unit in 2018 to manage complex data analytics[12], and the Digital Markets Unit (DMU) in 2021 to prepare for the implementation of the DMCC bill and enforce it[13].
The DMU has full discretion to define outcome-based conduct requirements (CRs), such as banning self-preferencing, provided they are proportionate and justified in ensuring fair dealing, open choices, trust and transparency. It can also mandate proportionate and justified pro-competitive interventions (PCIs) to address adverse effects on competition, like mandating interoperability[14]. Additionally, SMS firms will have to report certain acquisitions with a local nexus in the UK[15]. The DMCC bill grants extensive enforcement powers, including issuing orders, imposing penalties, pursuing criminal charges, and disqualifying directors.
Drawing from its experience in digital markets, the DMU will likely designate Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft as SMS firms.
Lessons From Europe and Germany
The UK regime shares several similarities with the European DMA and the German Section 19a GWB. Both European and German laws impose conduct requirements on large online platforms once designated by the Commission and the German competition authority, respectively. Like the DMCC bill, the DMA applies only to gatekeepers providing core platform services (CPSs). The Commission has already designated Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Booking, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft, while X is still under investigation. The DMA imposes a specific list of conduct requirements that gatekeepers must address through compliance solutions.
In contrast, Section 19a GWB applies to all activities of the designated firm, allowing the German competition authority to impose specific conduct requirements after an investigation. The German competition authority has already designated Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta, with Microsoft still under investigation.
The UK regime combines a designation phase similar to the DMA with the flexibility and discretion of Section 19a GWB to define specific compliance requirements. However, unlike the UK regime, the DMA and Section 19a GWB are not outcome-based; they do not specify outcomes but require firms to demonstrate their best efforts to comply by providing opportunities that the laws create.
The same firms that comply in Europe and Germany will likely need to comply in the UK. Thus, the CMA can learn from their compliance experiences in these regions.
Designation Challenges: Most SMS firms are unlikely to challenge their designation under the UK regime if the DMU defines digital activities similar to CPSs under the DMA. Most firms did not challenge their designation under the DMA, except Apple (App Store and iMessage), ByteDance (TikTok), and Meta (Messenger and Marketplace). Amazon and Apple challenged their designation under Section 19a GWB[16].
Leveraging Compliance Solutions: SMS firms will likely leverage their DMA compliance solutions under the UK regime, especially if the DMU's obligations are similar to the DMA requirements. Given their global presence, these firms can achieve economies of scale, including in regulatory compliance, ensuring consistency with European laws and quick implementation.
Engaging with Stakeholders: SMS firms will engage with stakeholders and the CMA if dialogues are constructive. Designated firms under the DMA engage with the Commission and third parties to improve compliance solutions. For example, Apple adjusted its terms for alternative distribution channels to address concerns from developers with minimal or no revenue about pricing schemes following feedback from developers and academics[17].
Minimising Adverse Impacts: SMS firms will aim to minimise adverse impacts on stakeholders, necessitating DMU acceptance of concessions to preserve user experience and achieve positive competition and consumer outcomes. Compliance under the DMA has led to business changes that affect user interactions. For instance, Google's changes to comply with the ban on self-preferencing led Google to promote intermediaries like Booking and Expedia over hotels in search results, causing hotels to rely more on intermediaries due to reduced direct traffic from Google Search. Google also removed Google Maps from Google Search, degrading the user experience[18].
Preserving Revenue, Privacy, and Security: