数字剥削性滥用社会溯因与反垄断执法规范裁量的展开

The Social Tracing of Digital Exploiting Abuse and the Development of Anti Monopoly Enforcement Norms and Discretions

数字技术作为一种组织化的超级权力,其兴起显示极强的技术反噬社会效应,既强化了物的关系对人的关系的遮蔽,又加剧了科技巨擘以契约自由的假相对其他社会群体实施注意力与数据剥削的趋势。囿于现行反垄断立法制度的局限性与执法资源的有限性,反垄断执法机构对数字剥削性滥用行为采取的是典型的功利主义处理方法,或选择性忽略,或恣意使用裁量方法、基准,案件裁量呈现显著的不规范性,进一步放大了数字剥削性滥用给社会系统带来的排斥效应,破坏了公众对反垄断法运行的规范性预期。数字剥削性滥用反垄断执法应当受到市场力量、反垄断损害、认定标准三重限制,其规范裁量的展开是反垄断法回应数字技术变革带来的执法挑战以及提升执法效能的重要路径。这需要变革理念,做到添补新损害要件、建立正式的案件筛选机制,最终实现数字剥削性滥用与排他性滥用案件并举;还需要变革路径,明确注意力、数据的价值计算方式,并通过可比对价差异识别,寻找可比产品、期间以及地理市场,科学匹配注意力、数据剥削的判断基准。

As an organized superpower,the rise of digital technology demonstrates a very strong technological backlash on society,which not only strengthens the shielding of material relationships from human relationships,but also exacerbates the trend of technology giants exploiting attention and data from other social groups under the illusion of contractual freedom.Due to the limitations of the current anti-monopoly legislative system and the limited enforcement resources,the anti-monopoly enforcement agencies have adopted a typical utilitarian approach to digital exploitative abuse,either selectively ignoring or arbitrarily using discretionary methods and benchmarks.The case discretion shows significant irregularity,further amplifying the exclusion effect of digital exploitative abuse on the social system and undermining the public's normative expectations for the operation of anti-monopoly laws.The enforcement of anti-monopoly laws on digital exploitative abuse should be subject to three limitations:market forces,anti-monopoly damage,and recognition standards.The development of the regulatory discretion is an important path for anti-monopoly laws to respond to the enforcement challenges brought about by digital technology changes and improve enforcement efficiency.This requires a change in mindset,adding new elements of damage,establishing a formal case screening mechanism,and ultimately achieving the simultaneous development of cases of digital exploitative abuse and exclusive abuse.We still need to change the path,clarify the value calculation method of attention and data,and identify comparable products,periods,and geographic markets through comparative price differences,scientifically matching judgment benchmarks for attention and data exploitation.