論數位市場的管制趨勢：以歐盟數位市場法為核心

Abstract

隨著網際網路的發展和成熟，除為大眾生活帶來諸多娛樂和便利的科技產品外，越來越多的經營手段和商業模式也日漸豐富和多樣，讓人不禁感嘆數位科技的進步為人類社會帶來的巨大改變，其中尤以Google、Apple、Meta以及Amazon被美國合稱為四大科技巨頭的公司，對市場的影響最大。無論是Google Search改變人類記憶、搜尋資訊的方式，或是iPhone帶來行動裝置的變革，又或者是Mega顛覆人際之間聯繫的方式，以及Amazon對全球電商和物流帶來的衝擊，都讓人甚至難以想像如今的生活缺少這些科技巨頭提供的服務和產品將會成為什麼模樣。 然而，隨著這些科技巨頭在數位市場上的影響力日益龐大，各國競爭法主管機關陸續對他們的一些經營行為提出質疑，認為這些科技巨頭以有別於傳統的方式悄悄的限制數位市場中的競爭，並扼殺可能的潛在競爭對手。有鑒於此，各國競爭法主管機關開始嘗試應對數位市場中的種種新興商業模式和經營型態。除調整競爭法事後審查的分析方法外，部分國家的競爭法主管機關近年來也開始擬議針對數位市場訂定事前管制措施，期待透過事前管制簡化分析、提前預防的方式，能快速因應數位市場近年來層出不窮的濫用市場地位之行為、防止可能損害的擴大，並更進一步希望透過課予數位市場主導者事前義務的方式，為數位市場引入可競爭性，降低市場的參進障礙。 本文將目光聚焦在前述數位市場的事前管制上。本文從數位市場自身的特性開始分析，試圖釐清數位市場與其他產業市場在性質上究竟有何特殊之處，致使在競爭法事後管制存在的情形下，仍有必要另行訂定事前管制的需求。接著本文借鑑德國、美國及歐盟所擬定的數位市場事前管制措施，發現比較法上儘管其規範細節上有所差異，但主要透過市場主導者的指定、事前義務課予的劃定、應受事前禁止的濫用市場地位行為態樣的指明以及互操作性義務的課予等手段，達成促進數位市場可競爭性，以及預防濫用市場地位行為之損害擴大的目的。 最後，本文參考學者們對歐盟數位市場法的分析與建議，並比較當前可供參考的比較法法制上的差異，嘗試梳理出在數位市場引進事前管制可能帶來的效益和疑慮，並認為我國仍有參考比較法引入事前管制的空間，惟立法模式上應考量我國產業狀況進行相應的調整。一方面，在預防濫用市場地位行為之損害擴大的面向上，除在守門人的指定和事前義務課予的範疇應採取較為彈性的認定標準外，事前禁止的濫用市場地位行為態樣也應允許市場主導者有更多抗辯的空間。另一方面，促進數位市場可競爭性的面向上，本文鼓勵觀察國際間的立法動態，引入系統互操作性和消費者的資料可攜權，幫助數位市場的資料流通，降低市場的參進障礙，但同時反對引入資料互操作性義務，避免潛在競爭對手的搭便車行為扼殺數位市場的創新動能。

With the development and maturation of the Internet, along with the numerous entertainment and convenience brought by technological products, there is an increasingly diverse range of business methods and models that continue to enrich the digital market. The advancements in digital technology have brought significant changes to human society, and among the companies known as the four tech giants in the United States - Google, Apple, Mega, and Amazon - their impact on the market is the greatest. Whether it is Google Search changing the way we access and search for information, the iPhone revolutionizing mobile devices, Meta transforming interpersonal communication, or Amazon rebuilding global e-commerce and logistics, it is difficult to imagine what life would be like without the services and products provided by these tech giants. However, as the influence of these tech giants in the digital market grows, competition authorities in various countries have raised questions about some of their business practices. They believe that these tech giants quietly limit competition in the digital market in ways that differ from traditional methods, and suppress potential competitors. In light of this, competition authorities in different countries have begun to address emerging business models and practices in the digital market. In addition to adjusting the analysis methods of ex post competition law review, some competition authorities have proposed implementing ex ante regulatory measures, aiming to respond quickly to the increasing abusive conduct arising in the digital market, prevent potential harm, and further introduce competition into the digital market by imposing ex ante obligations on dominant players and reducing barriers to market entry. This article focuses on the ex ante regulation of the digital market. Starting with an analysis of the characteristics of the digital market itself, the article attempts to clarify the unique aspects of the digital market compared to other industry markets, which emphasize the need for separate ex ante regulations despite the existence of ex post competition law regulation. The article then draws on the ex ante regulatory measures proposed by Germany, the United States, and the European Union, finding that though there are differences in the specific regulatory details, they primarily aim to promote competition in the digital market and prevent the expansion of harm resulting from the abuse of market power, through the designation of market dominators, imposition of ex ante obligations, identification of abusive conduct subject to ex ante prohibition, and imposition of interoperability obligations. Lastly, we referred to scholars' analyses and recommendations regarding EU Digital Market Act, and compared the differences in legal systems in other countries. We attempted to summarize the benefits and concerns that may arise from introducing ex ante regulation in the digital market. We believe that Taiwan can still consider implementing ex ante regulation, but adjustments should be made to the legislative model based on our country's industry conditions. On one hand, in terms of preventing the expansion of harm resulting from the abuse of market power, more flexible criteria should be adopted for the designation of gatekeepers and imposition of ex ante obligations, allowing greater room for defense against abusive conduct subject to ex ante prohibition. On the other hand, in terms of promoting competition in the digital market, the article encourages observation of international legislative developments, the introduction of system interoperability and consumer data portability to facilitate data circulation in the digital market, and the reduction of barriers to market entry. However, it opposes the imposition of data interoperability obligations to avoid stifling innovation in the digital market by potential competitors hitching a ride on existing market players' efforts.