PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 18, 2026Humanities and Social Sciences Communications0 citationsOpen Access

Rethinking the role of privacy risk in addressing abuse of data power: from both data protection and competition perspectives

View Full Paper
QHQing HeBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsDXDi XieBeijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

Key Points

  • The study examines how to measure privacy risk and integrate competition considerations into data protection.
  • Analyzes scenarios of privacy risk associated with data processing practices.
  • Explores cases like German Facebook and Microsoft/Nuance to illustrate competitive concerns.
  • Introduces 'data quality' as a framework for assessing privacy protection.
  • High privacy risk linked to improper data use can lead to competitive disadvantages.
  • Low privacy risk through deidentification and user consent may not prevent exploitative practices.
  • Emphasizes data sharing obligations despite privacy-friendly measures.

Abstract

The question of how to measure the privacy risk/level of privacy protection can be viewed as a concern not only for data protection laws, but also for competition policy and enforcement. Data controllers build a competitive advantage at the expense of individual privacy, and the privacy risk can serve as an indicator, or a cover: The scenarios where high privacy risk is caused by improper data processing, such as data extraction without user consent or appropriate technical measures could, under certain conditions, produce exploitative effects (German Facebook case); however, the relevance of privacy risk in assessing competitive harm is premised on the importance of data for competition (Microsoft/Nuance), and the requirement that a data controller takes advantage of that importance, leading to a foreseeable loss of privacy interests. The scenarios where low privacy risk is decided by technically defined ‘deidentification’ (Google Privacy Sandbox), or contract-based consent under the cover of self-determination (Apple’s ATT policy; Doe v. Meta), cannot justify improper data processing, because the seemingly reduced privacy risk could be used as a cover to implement such practice as self-preferencing or price discrimination. It follows that the privacy protection defense cannot exempt data controllers from the data sharing obligation by simply endorsing privacy-friendly techniques, or consent-and-waiver agreement. Finally, this paper addresses the question of how to assess the privacy risk/level of privacy protection by introducing the idea of ‘data quality’, thereby contributing to the integration of competitive considerations into the data protection framework.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

He et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0aace55ba8ef6d83b70447https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07613-1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Privacy/Antitrust Curse: Insights from GDPR Application in Competition Law Proceedings2024 · 4 citations
  2. 2Strategic data sales on online platforms with consumer privacy concerns and protection2026
  3. 3Balancing Data Protection and Data Utilization: Global Perspectives and Trends2024 · 1 citations
  4. 4Consumer Privacy and Anticompetitive Exclusion2025
  5. 5Legal Challenges and Countermeasures for Data Privacy Protection2024 · 1 citations