 | , - |
 | Université Paris-Dauphine |
Emerging in the early 2000s, the platform model has taken hold in a number of business sectors where new types of intermediaries are reorganising the relationship between supply and demand, at least by redefining the role of traditional service providers, and often by enabling new providers to enter the market. Because they do not invest in production capacity themselves, platforms have been able to expand rapidly and 'disrupt' traditional models of service provision. They are helping to change the competitive landscape and, in so doing, are affecting the economic equilibrium of operators in the sectors concerned. They can also call into question public policies such as those concerning work, urban planning, the organisation of transport provision, etc.
Faced with the consequences of the emergence of these platforms, public debate has begun in recent years in an attempt to establish the principles of public intervention in this area: What are the justifications for intervention? What methods should be used? The rapidly evolving nature of platforms, their transnational nature, the high degree of innovation, the great technical complexity of their operations and the diversity of their models have all combined to lead to a situation where, initially, it was essentially the responsibility of the operators concerned and, more marginally, the public authorities were seen as having the primary responsibility for preserving strong competition in the digital sector by combating anti-competitive practices. Faced with the difficulty of identifying such practices, the evidence of a number of abuses and the consolidation of the sector around a few dominant operators, the mindset has changed and several public reports have advocated a new, much more aggressive approach to regulating platforms. However, the debate is far from settled, and the modus operandi for intervention, both in terms of the players involved and the tools to be used, is still under discussion, complicated by the transnational nature of the activities concerned.
These debates on platform regulation are of interest to stakeholders in the "regulated" sectors for two reasons. Firstly, the activities of major digital players, or new entrants, can have an impact on regulated sectors. It is important to take this into account in sector regulation. Secondly, the platform model and the regulatory solutions it gives rise to can be a source of inspiration for regulators, particularly at a time when traditional operators may themselves be seeking to set themselves up as platforms or reorganise as platforms in their own sectors.
This morning's discussion by the Club des Régulateurs will be organised around two series of presentations. The first will look at the current thinking and debate on the regulation of platforms: why and how should they be regulated? We will see that, for some, it is not necessarily the platforms as such that should be regulated but certain practices or, on the contrary, certain ecosystems. Secondly, we will analyse how French regulators are faced with challenges related to platforms or intermediaries operating certain digital functions.
Speakers
- Maya Bacache | ARCEP, Club des Régulateurs
- Jean-Yves Ollier | Conseil d’Etat, associé à la Chaire et au Club
- Joëlle Toledano | Professeure émérite associée à la Chaire et au Club (Présentation disponible en ligne)
- Dominique Jamme |CRE, Club des Régulateurs
- Christophe Cousin et Sébastien Lecou | CSA, Club des Régulateurs
- Anna Butlen | HADOPI, Club des Régulateurs (Présentation disponible en ligne)
