پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,261 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,847 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 22,203,145 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,928,829 |
ضرورت شناسایی حق انتقال اطلاعات شخصی و مقابله با سوءاستفاده سکوها از موقعیت مسلط (با تکیهبر مقررات عمومی اتحادیه اروپا و طرح حمایت از دادهها و حفاظت از اطلاعات شخصی در ایران) | ||
| دوفصلنامه علمی دانش حقوق مدنی | ||
| دوره 14، بهار و تابستان 1404 (پیاپی 27)، شهریور 1404، صفحه 191-206 اصل مقاله (1.9 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/clk.2025.75025.3395 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| صنم رحمانپور؛ اسماعیل عباسی* ؛ محمدحسین عرفان منش | ||
| گروه حقوق خصوصی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی شاخصههای موقعیت مسلط سکوها مبتنی بر اطلاعات و سوءاستفاده سکوها از این موقعیت مسلط در قالب امتناع از معامله و بررسی ضرورت انتقال اطلاعات (بهعنوان امکانات ضروری رقابت) میان سکوها از یکسو و ارتباط شناسایی حق انتقال اطلاعات با جلوگیری از سوءاستفاده سکوهای بزرگ از موقعیت مسلط از سوی دیگر است. برای نیل به این هدف پژوهش حاضر با کاربست شیوه کیفی مبتنی بر گردآوری اطلاعات از منابع کتابخانـهای )اسنادی) و روش تحلیلی – توصیفی، در قالب انجام مطالعهای تطبیقی میان حقوق ایران و اتحادیه اروپا و بررسی برخی آرای قضایی، ضرورت شناسایی حق انتقال اطلاعات کاربران و ارتباط آن با مقابله با سوءاستفاده سکوهای بزرگ از موقعیت مسلط را مورد بحث قرار داده است. یافتههای این مطالعه حاکی از آن است که اطلاعات شخصی واجد مزیت رقابتی و از امکانات ضروری رقابت است. دسترسی سکوهای بزرگ به حجم عظیم اطلاعات شخصی و امتناع از دسترسی سکوهای کوچک به اطلاعات، امتناع از معامله و از مصادیق سوءاستفاده از موقعیت مسلط است. مقابله با سوءاستفاده سکوها از موقعیت مسلط، مستلزم دسترسی بیشتر سکوهای کوچک و متوسط به اطلاعات کاربران (بهعنوان امکانات ضروری رقابت) است. یکی از راهکارها، شناسایی امکان انتقال اطلاعات شخصی است. برای مقابله با محدودیتهای اعمال این حق (اعم از لزوم جلب رضایت کاربران، محدود بودن حق به اطلاعات شخصی، محددویت هدف و محدودیت ذخیرهسازی)، پیشبینی دامنه گستردهتری از اطلاعات و شرایطی برای انتقال اجباری اطلاعات در مقررات رقابتی برای تسهیل رقابت میتواند راهگشا باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اطلاعات شخصی؛ اتحادیه اروپا؛ حق حمل؛ رقابت؛ موقعیت مسلط | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Recognizing the Right to Data Portability as a Safeguard against the Abuse of Market Power by Dominant Digital Platforms (With a Focus on the EU GDPR and Iran’s Draft Bill on Data and Personal Information Protection) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Sanam Rahmanpour؛ Esmail Abbasi؛ Mohammad hossein Erfanmanesh | ||
| Department of Private Law, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This research seeks to analyze the features of digital platforms' dominance rooted in control over personal data and to assess the manifestations of such dominance, particularly through practices of refusal to deal. It further examines the imperative of data transfer between platforms—viewed as an essential facility necessary to maintain competitive market dynamics—and explores the correlation between the recognition of the right to data portability and the prevention of abusive conduct by dominant platforms. To pursue this aim, the study adopts a qualitative methodology, relying on documentary (library-based) sources and an analytical-descriptive framework. The analysis includes a comparative legal examination of Iranian and European Union legal systems, complemented by a review of relevant judicial decisions. The core of the discussion focuses on the legal necessity of establishing the right to transfer user data and its role in curbing the abuse of dominant positions within digital markets. The findings reveal that personal data constitutes a substantial source of competitive advantage and may serve as an essential facility in platform-based competition. When major platforms possess extensive datasets and deny access to smaller competitors, such conduct can amount to a refusal to deal and represent an abuse of dominance. Promoting fair competition thus requires ensuring that small and medium-sized platforms are granted meaningful access to user data, reinforcing the legal and economic significance of recognizing data portability rights. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Personal Data, European Union, Data Portability Right, Competition, Dominant Position | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadvand, Behnaz. (2023). Comparative Study of Privacy Protection and Personal Data Protection in the Internet of Tings. Tehran: Khorsandi Publications (In Persian). Almunia, J. (2012). SPEECH/12/372 Statement of VP Almunia on the Google antitrust investigation. Retrieved January 5, 2025, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/speech_12_372/SPEECH_12_372_EN.pdf. Anderman, S. D. (2011). EU competition law and intellectual property rights: the regulation of innovation. Oxford University Press. Ansari, B. and Attar, S. (2013). “Privacy Protection on Social Networking Sites”. Journal of Legal Research, 12(23), 113-137. (In Persian). Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2013). Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation (Report). Brussels: Article 29 Working Party. https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp203_en.pdf . Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2017, April 5). Guidelines on the right to data portability (WP 242 rev.01). https://www.pdpjournals.com/docs/88673.pdf . Bronner v. Mediaprint, Case C-7/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:569 (Court of Justice, 1998). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0007. Drexl, J. (2016). “Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data - Between Propertisation and Access”. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2862975. European Commission. (2009). Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (OJ C 45). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2009_045_R_0007_01. European Commission. (2014, October 3). Case No COMP/M.7217 – Facebook/WhatsApp: Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m7217_20141003_20310_3962132_EN.pdf. European Commission. (2017, June 27). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1784. Gal, M., & Aviv, O. (2020). “The competitive effects of the GDPR”. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 16(3), 349–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhaa018. Geradin, D., & Kuschewsky, M. (2013). “Competition Law and Personal Data: Preliminary Thoughts on a Complex Issue”. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2216088. Geradin, D., Katsifis, D., & Karanikioti, T. (2021). “Google as a de facto privacy regulator: Analysing the privacy Sandbox from an antitrust perspective”. European Competition Journal, 17(3), 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2021.1930450. Ghanad, F. and Aligholi, A. (2020). “The Notion and Importance of Personal Data and Privacy and Their Various Protections in Cyber Space”. Modern Technologies Law, 1(1), 297-322. doi: 10.22133/clj.2020.243290.1016 (In Persian). Graef, I., Jeroen Verschakelen, & Valcke, P. (2013). Putting the Right to Data Portability into a Competition Law Perspective, The Journal of the Higher School of Economics, Annual Review, 2013, 53-63. Graef, I., Wahyuningtyas, S. Y., & Valcke, P. (2015). Assessing data access issues in online platforms. Telecommunications Policy, 39(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.001. Graef, I. (2016). EU Competition Law, Data Protection and Online Platforms: Data as Essential Facility. Kluwer Law International B.V. Graef, I. (2019a). Rethinking the Essential Facilities Doctrine for the EU Digital Economy. Papers. ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3371457. Graef, I., Tombal, T., & de Streel, A. (2019b). Limits and enablers of data sharing: An analytical framework for EU competition, data protection and consumer law (TILEC Discussion Paper No. DP 2019-11). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3494212. Grunes, A. P., & Stucke, M. E. (2015, April 28). No Mistake About It: The Important Role of Antitrust in the Era of Big Data. (1-15) Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2600051. Habibi, Homayun. (2015). “Right to privacy in social networks”. Legal Research Quarterly, 19, 75, 39-64 (In Persian). IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG, Case C-418/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:257 (Court of Justice, 2004). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0418. Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases 6 and 7/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:39 (Court of Justice, 1974). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61973CJ0006. Janeček, V. (2018). “Ownership of personal data in the Internet of Things”. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(5), 1039–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.04.007. Kaminski, E., & Margot. (2022). “The case for data privacy rights (or “Please, a little optimism”)”. Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, 97, 390. Katz, M. L., Shapiro, C., & Wilson, W. (1983). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility (Working Paper). Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. Lianos, I., & Motchenkova, E. (2013). “Market dominance and search quality in the search engine market”. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 9(2), 419–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhs037. London European - Sabena, Case IV/32.318, Commission Decision (Nov. 24, 1988). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31988D0589. Rancati, L. (2019). The intersection between antitrust and data protection: Lessons from the Facebook/WhatsApp merger and the Bundeskartellamt’s decision on Facebook’s terms and conditions (Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain). Lynskey, O. (2015). The Foundations of EU Data Protection Law. Oxford University Press. Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, Case T-201/04, ECLI: EU: T:2007:330 (General Court, Sept. 17, 2007). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201. Nuccio, M., & Guerzoni, M. (2018). “Big data: Hell or heaven? Digital platforms and market power in the data-driven economy”. Competition & Change, 23(3), Article 102452941881652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529418816525. Rahbari, Ebrahim., Hasani Sangani, Vahid. (2018). Competition Laws in the realm of Intellectual Property. Vol. 2, First Edition. Tehran: Samt Publications (In Persian). Seaver, N. (2018). “Captivating algorithms: Recommender systems as traps”. Journal of Material Culture, 24(4), Article 135918351882036. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183518820366 . Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information Rules: a Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press. Swire, P. P., & Lagos, Y. (2013). “Why the Right to Data Portability Likely United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/224/383/. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 321 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 60 |
||