Public Knowledge

[Analysis] Digital platforms that (a) provide a two-sided or multi-sided market; (b) are accessed via the internet; and (c) have at least one side that is marketed as a “mass market” service, share a set of characteristics and raise a similar set of concerns so that we should consider them as a distinct set of businesses. This does not make laws of general applicability such as antitrust inapposite. Nor are these distinct capabilities and incentives intrinsically bad or good.

[Analysis] As digital platforms have become increasingly important in our everyday lives, we’ve recognized that the need for some sort of regulatory oversight increases. We have reached the point where we need sector-specific regulation focused on online digital platforms, not just application of existing antitrust or existing consumer protection laws.

At the end of June, California enacted what has been billed as a comprehensive privacy law. By all accounts, it was a rush job, negotiated in a week behind closed doors in a desperate and successful attempt to keep Californians for Consumer Privacy Campaign Chairman Alaistair MacTaggart’s privacy initiative off the November ballot. As sometimes happens, the law’s proponents and a few reporters may have overhyped the legislation – both given its current contents and because many expect it to change before its effective date in January 2020.

Public Knowledge leads a group of public interest and racial justice allies in welcoming net neutrality advocates from across the United States to Washington (DC) for a “Day of Advocacy.” Volunteers plan to express how important net neutrality is to their lives, schools, and businesses and why Congress should support the Congressional Review Act resolution to reinstate the FCC’s strong net neutrality rules. More than 50 participants volunteered to share their stories in scheduled meetings with their representatives on Capitol Hill.