Skip to content

Discerning Data

  • About Us
  • Additional Resources
  • Contact Us

DISCERNING DATA

A Faegre Drinker Blog Covering the Latest in Privacy, Cybersecurity and Data Strategy

  • Privacy
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Strategy
  • Disruptionware

Head of DOJ Antitrust Division Addresses Implications of Data Privacy in the Era of Big Data

Share

Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim recently spoke at the University of Chicago’s Antitrust and Competition Conference and discussed how U.S. antitrust law should treat “big data.”  According to Delrahim, antitrust law is “flexible enough to address competition issues from emerging platforms,” including large tech companies like Google and Facebook that possess significant market share within their lines of business and simultaneously aggregate vast sums of personal data from consumers.

Noting that consumers are increasingly indicating a “revealed preference for personal data privacy in the digital economy,” Delrahim stated that data privacy protections are essentially a commodity and that antitrust enforcers should approach them like any other product consumers purchase.  At the same time, Delrahim acknowledged that enforcers must determine whether large tech companies have the ability to thwart competitors who might offer consumers better data protection.

In his remarks, Delrahim did not address current events, such as Cambridge Analytica obtaining personal data from nearly 87 million Facebook users, but did acknowledge concerns that antitrust law should significantly reign in aggregators of personal data.  According to Delrahim, some argue that enforcers should “simply . . . declare that data is the new digital currency, that online platforms have been exploiting data without consent, that loss of information control is anti-competitive, and then impose eye-popping penalties by multiplying some measure of data value by the size of the consumer base.”

Delrahim pushed back firmly against that approach, saying that it was not “evidence-based.”  Rather, Delrahim argued that data privacy is itself a valuable commodity, and that consumers should be able to bargain for it from companies that aggregate and collect their personal data.  In other words, consumers make rational choices about whether, for example, the benefits of joining Facebook adequately compensate them for the personal data they share with the company in order to do so.

Building on that observation, Delrahim contended that consumers may now be demonstrating a stronger preference for data privacy protections than in years past and that, as a result, “the mentality regarding free platforms may well be changing.”  Thus, he said, antitrust enforcers should avoid interfering with the competitive process by which companies develop data privacy protections and consumers evaluate whether they are willing to accept those protections in exchange for sharing their data.  Instead, enforcers should analyze whether large tech companies might possess such large market shares in their lines of business that they lack sufficient incentives to offer data privacy protections that match or beat protections that rivals could develop.

It remains unclear whether antitrust enforcers in the U.S. (i.e. the DOJ-Antitrust Division and the FTC) will conclude that significant barriers to competition in the development of data privacy platforms do exist.  Delrahim’s remarks indicate that this is a question to monitor closely in the future.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Receive Email Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE

April 30, 2018
Written by: Lee Roach and Ken Vorrasi
Category: Cybersecurity, Privacy
Tags: antitrust, data, DOJ, Facebook, Google, privacy

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Senate Confirms All Five Nominees to the FTC
Next Next post: SEC Cyber Unit Brings Groundbreaking Data Breach Case

Search the Blog

Sign Up for Email Alerts

PODCASTS

Faegre Drinker on Law and Technology

©2023 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.

  • About Us
  • Additional Resources
  • Contact Us
We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT