🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝Here.🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Friday, April 27, 2018
Thursday, April 26, 2018
FTC Charges Lending Club with Deceiving Consumers
FTC, here.
"Defendant conducts a credit pull on applicants’ credit reports. Defendant then immediately rejects those consumers that it determines do not meet certain baseline criteria. Defendant refers to this step as “front-end” denial..."Although Defendant tells consumers that its loans contain “No hidden fees,” Defendant nevertheless charges consumers an up-front fee that is not clearly and conspicuously disclosed. This fee is calculated as a percentage—on average, approximately 5 percent—of the consumer’s requested loan amount, and often amounts to more than a thousand dollars...Defendant deducts the hidden up-front fee from the promised “Loan Amount” before disbursing the loan funds to the consumer. As a result, the amount of money that Defendant disburses to a consumer’s bank account is always substantially smaller than the promised “Loan Amount.” And because consumers must pay interest on the entire “Loan Amount,” including the fee, Defendant’s hidden fee leaves consumers paying interest on principal that they never received...Defendant has ignored these warnings. Rather than improving over time, Defendant’s violations have become more egregious over the years: when redesigning the application flow in the winter of 2014, Defendant increased the prominence of the “No hidden fees” representation and decreased the prominence of the tooltip...On desktops and mobile phones, after consumers agree to the loan terms and enter bank account information, they then click a “Done!” button and are taken to a screen that has stated, in large type: “Your [amount requested] loan is on the way. What’s next?” The amount that Defendant promises is “on the way” is the same “Loan Amount” that Defendant promised the consumer on the Loan Offer page. For example, a consumer who was promised a $10,000 loan amount will see on this screen a representation that “Your $10,000 loan is on the way...Although Defendant has told each consumer who completed a loan application that his or her “loan is on the way,” a consumer’s application in fact must undergo two additional processes after completion in order to receive final approval. First, an application must attract sufficient investor backing, and second, an application must pass Defendant’s stringent “back-end” credit review—so called to distinguish it from the lighter, “front-end” review that Defendant conducts while the consumer’s application is still in progress...If a consumer has garnered investor funding—but before Defendant has finished the “back-end” review of their applications—Defendant has sent such consumers various email messages communicating that the consumers will receive loans...In reality, however, many consumers who received such emails were subsequently rejected based on Defendant’s “back-end” credit review and never received a loan from Defendant. For example, of the at least approximately 196,000 consumers who received the above email, at least approximately 43,000 were subsequently rejected. The “back-end” credit review is searching and often involves, inter alia, an additional credit inquiry, a phone call to the consumer, requests for additional documentation, and detailed review of the consumer’s tax and bank records...Defendant’s default method of receiving consumers’ scheduled monthly payments is automatic electronic bank account withdrawal via ACH transfer. In numerous instances, Defendant has withdrawn money from consumers’ bank accounts without consumers’ authorization, or in amounts in excess of the amount consumers authorized Defendant to withdraw...As a result of Defendant’s unauthorized charges, many consumers are forced to pay overdraft fees, while other consumers are unable to pay other bills because they do not have access to the money that Defendant improperly withdrew...Defendant’s conduct is governed by the Privacy Rule prior to October 28, 2014, and by Reg. P after that date. The GLB Act authorizes both the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission to enforce Reg. P. 15 U.S.C. § 6805...Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rule and Reg. P. Specifically, Defendant failed to deliver the initial privacy notice so that each customer can reasonably be expected to receive actual notice. 16 C.F.R. § 313.9; 12 C.F.R. § 1016.9. For example, until at least the end of 2016, Defendant did not require customers to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular financial product or service. 16 C.F.R. § 313.9, and Reg. P, 12 C.F.R. § 1016.9. Instead, Defendant required customers to agree only to Defendant’s Terms of Use, which itself included only a link to Defendant’s privacy policy. In order to reach the privacy notice that Defendant was required to provide to customers, a customer would need to click on a link that did not indicate it was related to privacy, and then further find a link to Defendant’s privacy policy within the lengthy document to which the link led. Customers were not provided a clear and conspicuous privacy notice before they submitted nonpublic personal information to Defendant...Customers were only provided a link leading directly to the notice after they had applied for a personal loan. Defendant’s own compliance group had recommended repeatedly that the company require customer acknowledgment in the years prior to the 2016 change...Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act and the Privacy Rule. In addition, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest."
Why did it take so long for the FTC to act? And what about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau re privacy issues? See FTC FinTech Series: Marketplace Lending June 9, 2016 Transcript, here. See also here, June 9 2016 ("8 of 15 mention “No Hidden Fees”).
"Defendant conducts a credit pull on applicants’ credit reports. Defendant then immediately rejects those consumers that it determines do not meet certain baseline criteria. Defendant refers to this step as “front-end” denial..."Although Defendant tells consumers that its loans contain “No hidden fees,” Defendant nevertheless charges consumers an up-front fee that is not clearly and conspicuously disclosed. This fee is calculated as a percentage—on average, approximately 5 percent—of the consumer’s requested loan amount, and often amounts to more than a thousand dollars...Defendant deducts the hidden up-front fee from the promised “Loan Amount” before disbursing the loan funds to the consumer. As a result, the amount of money that Defendant disburses to a consumer’s bank account is always substantially smaller than the promised “Loan Amount.” And because consumers must pay interest on the entire “Loan Amount,” including the fee, Defendant’s hidden fee leaves consumers paying interest on principal that they never received...Defendant has ignored these warnings. Rather than improving over time, Defendant’s violations have become more egregious over the years: when redesigning the application flow in the winter of 2014, Defendant increased the prominence of the “No hidden fees” representation and decreased the prominence of the tooltip...On desktops and mobile phones, after consumers agree to the loan terms and enter bank account information, they then click a “Done!” button and are taken to a screen that has stated, in large type: “Your [amount requested] loan is on the way. What’s next?” The amount that Defendant promises is “on the way” is the same “Loan Amount” that Defendant promised the consumer on the Loan Offer page. For example, a consumer who was promised a $10,000 loan amount will see on this screen a representation that “Your $10,000 loan is on the way...Although Defendant has told each consumer who completed a loan application that his or her “loan is on the way,” a consumer’s application in fact must undergo two additional processes after completion in order to receive final approval. First, an application must attract sufficient investor backing, and second, an application must pass Defendant’s stringent “back-end” credit review—so called to distinguish it from the lighter, “front-end” review that Defendant conducts while the consumer’s application is still in progress...If a consumer has garnered investor funding—but before Defendant has finished the “back-end” review of their applications—Defendant has sent such consumers various email messages communicating that the consumers will receive loans...In reality, however, many consumers who received such emails were subsequently rejected based on Defendant’s “back-end” credit review and never received a loan from Defendant. For example, of the at least approximately 196,000 consumers who received the above email, at least approximately 43,000 were subsequently rejected. The “back-end” credit review is searching and often involves, inter alia, an additional credit inquiry, a phone call to the consumer, requests for additional documentation, and detailed review of the consumer’s tax and bank records...Defendant’s default method of receiving consumers’ scheduled monthly payments is automatic electronic bank account withdrawal via ACH transfer. In numerous instances, Defendant has withdrawn money from consumers’ bank accounts without consumers’ authorization, or in amounts in excess of the amount consumers authorized Defendant to withdraw...As a result of Defendant’s unauthorized charges, many consumers are forced to pay overdraft fees, while other consumers are unable to pay other bills because they do not have access to the money that Defendant improperly withdrew...Defendant’s conduct is governed by the Privacy Rule prior to October 28, 2014, and by Reg. P after that date. The GLB Act authorizes both the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission to enforce Reg. P. 15 U.S.C. § 6805...Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rule and Reg. P. Specifically, Defendant failed to deliver the initial privacy notice so that each customer can reasonably be expected to receive actual notice. 16 C.F.R. § 313.9; 12 C.F.R. § 1016.9. For example, until at least the end of 2016, Defendant did not require customers to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular financial product or service. 16 C.F.R. § 313.9, and Reg. P, 12 C.F.R. § 1016.9. Instead, Defendant required customers to agree only to Defendant’s Terms of Use, which itself included only a link to Defendant’s privacy policy. In order to reach the privacy notice that Defendant was required to provide to customers, a customer would need to click on a link that did not indicate it was related to privacy, and then further find a link to Defendant’s privacy policy within the lengthy document to which the link led. Customers were not provided a clear and conspicuous privacy notice before they submitted nonpublic personal information to Defendant...Customers were only provided a link leading directly to the notice after they had applied for a personal loan. Defendant’s own compliance group had recommended repeatedly that the company require customer acknowledgment in the years prior to the 2016 change...Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act and the Privacy Rule. In addition, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest."
Why did it take so long for the FTC to act? And what about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau re privacy issues? See FTC FinTech Series: Marketplace Lending June 9, 2016 Transcript, here. See also here, June 9 2016 ("8 of 15 mention “No Hidden Fees”).
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Monday, April 23, 2018
Who’s Benefiting? Revisiting the Innovation and Start-Up Ecosystem
Digital Platforms and Concentration, Panel, Video here.
Privacy and Personal Data Collection with Information Externalities
J. Choi, D.-S. Jeon, B.-C. Kim, here.
Protecting competition, Reinforcing Consumer Protection, Rethinking Regulation
J. Tirole, Video here.
Some Memorable Quotes:
"Potential competition...if you don't know...the wise thing to do is not to let the merger operate"
"mfn...one of the cleverest strategies I've ever encountered, and people don't get it somehow"
"the important thing is, you can tax people who don't use you"
"I don't have a personal assistant, I don't want a personal assistant"
"What is the right fee for Booking?...I don't know"
"Defaults matter"
"We need the help the consumer...help me...self-regulation is going nowhere"
"Competition policy is slow, and often too late"
"Back and forth process" of regulation "you need to have guidelines and supervision"
"Participative antitrust" (droit de la concurrence participatif, this is the idea, my bet), "regulation reactive to ideas...proposed by the industry"
"You should make regulation agile...and listen to the industry"
"I'm not against breaking up those firms...my gut feeling right now is that it's difficult...harder that it used to be in the past because the technology is moving faster"
Brief discussion of Choi, Jeon, Kim Paper from 29:01
(tbd)
Some Memorable Quotes:
"Potential competition...if you don't know...the wise thing to do is not to let the merger operate"
"mfn...one of the cleverest strategies I've ever encountered, and people don't get it somehow"
"the important thing is, you can tax people who don't use you"
"I don't have a personal assistant, I don't want a personal assistant"
"What is the right fee for Booking?...I don't know"
"Defaults matter"
"We need the help the consumer...help me...self-regulation is going nowhere"
"Competition policy is slow, and often too late"
"Back and forth process" of regulation "you need to have guidelines and supervision"
"Participative antitrust" (droit de la concurrence participatif, this is the idea, my bet), "regulation reactive to ideas...proposed by the industry"
"You should make regulation agile...and listen to the industry"
"I'm not against breaking up those firms...my gut feeling right now is that it's difficult...harder that it used to be in the past because the technology is moving faster"
Brief discussion of Choi, Jeon, Kim Paper from 29:01
(tbd)
US vs EU: Antitrust, Data, and Privacy Policy
Stigler Center, Digital Platforms and Concentration, Panel, Video here.
The challenges for present and future competition enforcement
Danish Competition and Consumer Authority, here.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Lagarde urges greater scrutiny of big tech companies
FT, here.
Transcript of the CNBC's interview here:
"EISEN: ALL RIGHT. YOU’VE CERTAINLY BEEN WARNING ABOUT THAT. I KNOW YOU LOOK AT BANK REGULATIONS. WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY REGULATIONS? DO YOU THINK WE’RE ABOUT TO SEE A WAVE OF INCREASED SCRUTINY— OBVIOUSLY WE’VE SEEN SCRUTINY, BUT REVELATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO TECH GLOBALLY AND REVELATIONS INTO THEIR COMPETITIVENESS, AND COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, GOOGLE AND AMAZON.
LAGARDE: WELL, AS YOU SAID IN THE IMF, WE SUPPORT FREE MARKET. WE SUPPORT COMPETITION. WE SUPPORT IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY. WE SUPPORT INNOVATION. AND WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WHEN THERE IS TOO MUCH MARKET CONCENTRATION IN THE HANDS OF TOO FEW, WE’RE NOT SEEING COMPETITION, WE’RE NOT SEEING INNOVATION. AND OVER TIME WE ARE SEEING, YOU KNOW, GRADUAL --
EISEN: IS THAT WHEN FACEBOOK IS?
LAGARDE: IT DEPENDS HOW YOU DEFINE THE MARKET. IT DEPENDS WHO SUBSTITUTES. I MEAN, IT’S A VERY COMPLICATED DEBATE.
EISEN: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO CALL ANYONE OUT.
LAGARDE: BUT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS THAT LEVEL OF ACCESS TO MARKET, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUMULATION OF THAT DATA IN THE HANDS OF A FEW IS NOT GOING TO BE SUCH A BARRIER THAT OTHER ENTREPRENEURS SIMPLY CANNOT ACCESS. SO THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT WAS IN THE TELECOM AGE OR IN THE GILDED AGE. WE NEED TO REALLY RE-THINK THE WAY IN WHICH THAT SITUATION IS ADDRESSED. COMPETITION IS ENCOURAGED AND IF THAT REQUIRES A NEW SET OF RULES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE Intangibility OF THOSE ASSETS, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. LOOK AT TAX, FOR INSTANCE. IT’S ONE IN WHICH ALL POLICYMAKERS AROUND THE WORLD NEED TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT: WHERE IS VALUE LOCATED? WHERE IS VALUE GENERATED? HOW SHOULD IT BE TAXED AND WHAT REVENUE SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTED BY THOSE PLAYERS?"
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Monday, April 16, 2018
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Friday, April 13, 2018
Processing Personal Data on the Basis of Legitimate Interests under the GDPR
Future of Privacy Forum, here.
Was bringt die Datenschutz- Grundverordnung für automatisierte Entscheidungssysteme?
S. Dreyer, W. Schulz, hier.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Competition policy in a globalized and digitalized world. Challenges of today and tomorrow
Bundeskartellamt, Podiumsdiskussion, Video here.
Wettbewerb, Verbraucher, Arbeitsplätze – wen oder was schützen Wettbewerbsbehörden?
Bundeskartellamt, Interview Video hier.
The Lundbeck Case and the Concept of Potential Competition
S. Marco Colino, N. Dunne, K. Fournier, S. Pais, D. Ritzmann, here.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
EU Member States to cooperate on European strategy for Artificial Intelligence
EC, here. Declaration here.
A Member State is not required to extend a prohibition on the extradition of its own nationals to the United States to every EU citizen travelling in its territory
Judgment in Case C-191/16
Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, here.
The UberPop service does not constitute an information society service
Judgment in Case C-320/16, here.
Monday, April 09, 2018
eDistortions: How Data-opolies Are Dissipating the Internet’s Potential
A. Ezrachi, M. Stucke, here.
Tuesday, April 03, 2018
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
How Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Can Impact Market Design
P. Milgrom, S. Tadelis, here.
Governments must intervene to build trust in data use
FT, here.
But...the GDPR isn't about data ownership.
But...the GDPR isn't about data ownership.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Durchleuchtet, analysiert & einsortiert? Wie Unternehmen Daten über unseren Alltag erfassen und gegen uns einsetzen
Kitchen Talks, Video hier (und der Wiener Akzent ein echter Genuss !).
An Empirical Study of Affiliate Marketing Disclosures on YouTube and Pinterest
A. Mathur, A. Narayanan, M. Chetty, here.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Monday, March 19, 2018
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Meet the data war whistleblower
The Guardian, here.
“Facebook could see it was happening,” says Wylie. “Their security protocols were triggered because Kogan’s apps were pulling this enormous amount of data, but apparently Kogan told them it was for academic use. So they were like, ‘Fine’.”
The Video is also quite instructive, but, wait a minute, he doesn’t even trust HIS OWN MUM ?!?
“Facebook could see it was happening,” says Wylie. “Their security protocols were triggered because Kogan’s apps were pulling this enormous amount of data, but apparently Kogan told them it was for academic use. So they were like, ‘Fine’.”
The Video is also quite instructive, but, wait a minute, he doesn’t even trust HIS OWN MUM ?!?
Saturday, March 17, 2018
MasterCard and IBM to set up European ‘data trust’
FT, here.
*warning*: more than avarage legal errors in the article, but the news is there
*warning*: more than avarage legal errors in the article, but the news is there
Friday, March 16, 2018
The First Priority of Antitrust Analysis is Getting It Right, Not Making it Easier
Truth on the Market, here.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyrighted Content – Regulatory Action Needed?
J. Nordemann for the EP, here.
FROM METRO TO COTY: A STORY TO BE CONTINUED? THE CJEU'S JUDGMENT IN COTY GERMANY GMBH V PARFÜMERIE AKZENTE GMBH
A. Cicala, K. Haegeman, R. Cuff, here.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Monday, March 12, 2018
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Friday, March 09, 2018
Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and ‘Autonomous’ Systems
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, here.
Thursday, March 08, 2018
Reconciling competition and IP law: the case of patented pharmaceuticals and dominance abuse
C. Fonteijn, I. Akker and W. Sauter, here.
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
Tuesday, March 06, 2018
Monday, March 05, 2018
Friday, March 02, 2018
Thursday, March 01, 2018
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Inside the Engine Room of Digital Platforms: Reviews, Ratings, and Recommendations
P. Belleflamme, M. Peitz, here.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)