Kicking off discussions at this roundtable was the observation that big data – seen by some as akin to “oil” in the sense that, like the latter, it needs to be “refined” in order to be useful – lies at the heart of data-driven innovation, the new industrial revolution. Like any revolution, it has important ramifications, in terms of new services and market dynamics, on economies and societies throughout the world.
Technology (hardware and software) for collecting and processing data is now readily available to companies and authorities, while data itself is relatively easily accessible. It was noted, however, that what bestows value to data is the increasingly sophisticated algorithms with which it is handled and the associated expertise, which – it was pointed out – is currently in short supply. In order to make up for this deficiency, universities, especially those in America, are introducing tailored courses.
Two schools of thought were identified as emerging from public debate on the market impact of big data. The first of these sees big data as a key resource controlled by dominant companies that can, as a result, hinder the market access of competing firms. In contrast, the second approach views big data as a resource made available by various providers, which firms can use to improve the quality of their service offering.
In terms of the impact on competition, it was stressed that European antitrust rules do not consider holding a dominant market position to be a crime – only abuse of such a position would so constitute. However, the fact that a firm has achieved a dominant position through data collection and processing is not considered an abuse. Nevertheless, this does raise the question of whether companies in possession of such a large amount of data should be obliged to share it. European antitrust laws provide for this to be the case in instances where a series of conditions are shown to subsist simultaneously that effectively restrict competition and are detrimental to consumers’ rights.
Big data was characterized as representing both a great opportunity for businesses and a challenge for authorities. Thanks to sophisticated algorithms, firms are able to meet demand and offer new services to consumers, achieving ambitious targets and improving efficiency in the process. In addition, through better handling of enormous amounts of both structured and unstructured data, authorities, for their part, are able to make choices that further the public interest. In order to facilitate the achievement of this goal, certain strategic measures were suggested, namely: greater coordination between the actions of individual authorities; the creation of a structure for amassing such data; and training in specific skills, including with the support of experts in big data management.
It was submitted that the new revolution entails a change in approaches to competition and in market dynamics, necessitating a “data strategy” that ensures the practice of regulators does not impede firms and is capable de rigueur of evolving and changing. The participants stressed that only in this way will firms be assured of the chance to compete in the field of innovation on an even footing and free from excessive regulation. In a scenario that is constantly evolving at an extraordinary pace, the role of the regulator is therefore key but at the same time tricky. A combination of co-regulation and self-regulation was seen as the ideal option, albeit in the knowledge that not every eventuality can be covered.
In addition to market issues and regulation thereof, it was urged that the individual – the very source of the data – should not be overlooked. Such data was once used essentially for strictly commercial purposes, whereas today it is also put to secondary use. People’s everyday online footprint is allowing ever-more precise profiling of users by companies. Careful analysis of this mass of data not only enables the provision of innovative services, but could also be used to predict the behavior of consumers, to the point – in the worst instances – of influencing their every choice.
The link between privacy and competition in cases of market concentration ensuing from mergers between companies supplying services to users was also a subject of discussion. Specifically, these are cases where big data collected to provide a service is characterized by the fact that privacy is an integral part of the service offered. It was thus seen as crucial – however difficult it might be – to find a balance between users’ desire to draw benefit from the segmentation of new services, and at the same time to have their privacy respected. The average user – often due to time pressures, complexity of instructions, or being forced to accept in order to proceed with a transaction – tends to ignore privacy notices when consent to process personal data is requested. It was acknowledged, in any case, that both legislation and online businesses are providing an ever-increasing number of tools for consumers to protect ownership, control, and handling of their data. In this regard, it was suggested that greater cooperation between public and private operators would be desirable to facilitate improved cyber civics.
Lastly, it was emphasized that the protection of consumer privacy is also closely bound up with an increasingly important issue, namely, data security. Privacy and security were deemed two sides of the same coin and accordingly definitely call for attention and coordination from the public and private sectors. It is important for citizens/consumers to be aware of the ways in which data is collected and processed, and to be well-informed about the consequences of their actions online.