Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:41:57.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facebook isn't free: zero-price companies overcharge consumers with data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2020

MATT SUMMERS Open the ORCID record for MATT SUMMERS [Opens in a new window]
MATT SUMMERS*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School Antitrust Association, Cambridge, MA, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Founder, Harvard Law School Antitrust Association, Cambridge, MA, USA. Email: msummers@jd21.law.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The emergence of dominant companies that don't charge money to their primary consumers poses serious challenges to current antitrust law around the world. This paper suggests an approach to regulating these ‘zero-price’ companies that considers the data consumers give up to use them as the ‘price’ they pay. The ‘data as price’ model acts as a starting point to assess whether consumers are being ‘overcharged’ by Facebook in the status quo compared to how much data they would give up in a more competitive social media landscape. By surveying thousands of participants and assessing a litany of relevant behavioural considerations, this paper finds that customers are overpaying for Facebook, and that this may come at a serious welfare cost to millions of consumers. While further analysis is warranted, there is substantial cause for concern, and for critical re-evaluation of the standards generally used by antitrust regulators around the world to regulate companies such as Facebook.

Type
New Voices
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 532 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquisti, A., John, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2014), ‘What Is Privacy Worth?’, Journal of Legal Studies, 42(2): 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breffle, W.S., Eiswerth, M.E., Muralidharan, D. and Thornton, J. (2015), ‘Understanding how income influences willingness to pay for joint programs: A more equitable value measure for the less wealthy’, Ecological Economics, 109: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cakebread, C. (2017), ‘You're not alone, no one reads terms of service agreements’, Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/deloitte-study-91-percent-agree-terms-of-service-without-reading-2017-11?r=US&IR=TGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T.H. and Kay, A.C. (2014), ‘Solution Aversion: On the Relation between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5): 809–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eben, M. (2018), ‘Market Definition and Free Online Services: The Prospect of Personal Data as Price’, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy, 14(2): 227.Google Scholar
Fast Company (2019), ‘Instead of surveillance, what if we told advertisers what they wanted to know?’. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90324911/could-zero-party-data-end-the-scourge-of-third-party-dataGoogle Scholar
Flynn, K. (2018), ‘Facebook's making more money per user in North America than ever before’, Digiday. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/marketing/facebooks-making-money-per-user-north-america-ever/Google Scholar
FTC (2012), ‘FTC Report, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change’, 1, 2. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/reports/protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations-businesses-policymakersGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1991), ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knieser, T.J., Viscusi, W.K. and Ziliak, J.P. (2014), ‘Willingness to Accept Equals Willingness to Pay for Labor Market Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48: 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokolakis, S. (2017), ‘Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon’, Computers & Security, 64: 122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummer, M. and Schulte, P. (2016), ‘When Private Information Settles the Bill: Money and Privacy in Google's Market for Smartphone Applications’, Management Science, 65(8): 3470–3469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafrance, A. (2016), ‘The Convenience–Surveillance Tradeoff’, The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-convenience-surveillance-tradeoff/423891/Google Scholar
Mahmoodi, J., Čurdová, J., Henking, C., Kunz, M., Matic´, K., Mohr, P. and Vovko, M. (2018), ‘Internet Users’ Valuation of Enhanced Data Protection on Social Media: Which Aspects of Privacy are Worth the Most?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OECD (2018), ‘Quality considerations in digital zero-price markets’, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee. Retrieved from https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2018)14/en/pdfGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2018), ‘Social Media Fact Sheet’, 5 February. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/Google Scholar
Rodriguez, A. (2020), ‘Netflix gave a detailed explanation of why it won't sell advertising, but it's still working with brands in other ways’, Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/netflix-gave-a-detailed-explanation-of-why-it-wont-sell-advertising-but-its-still-working-with-brands-in-other-ways/articleshow/73526843.cmsGoogle Scholar
Sage, W.M. and Hammer, P.J. (1999), ‘Competing on Quality of Care: The Need to Develop a Competition Policy for Health Care Markets’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32: 1069–1118.Google Scholar
Salop, S.C., Moresi, S. and Woodbury, J.R. (2017), Market Definition. Washington, DC: Georgetown Law Faculty Publications.Google Scholar
Savage, S.J. and Waldman, D.M. (2013), ‘The Value of Online Privacy’, Working paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2341311Google Scholar
Srinivasan, D. (2019), ‘The Antitrust Case Against Facebook’, Berkeley Business Law Journal, 16: 39–101.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2007), ‘Willingness to Pay versus Welfare’, Harvard Law Policy Review, 1: 303–330.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2018), ‘How Much Would You Pay to Use Facebook? A Behavioral Perspective’, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 18-30.Google Scholar
Valletti, T. (2019), ‘Online Platforms and Market Power Part 3: The Role of Data and Privacy in Competition’, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110098/witnesses/HHRG-116-JU05-Wstate-VallettiT-20191018.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wu, T. (2017), ‘Blind Spot: The Attention Economy and the Law’, Antitrust Law Journal, 82: 3.Google Scholar