*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.

To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).

The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (Volume 28 Part 3) contains the following material


  • Alleging Unconscionable Conduct: No Guarantee of Success


Digital Platforms and Competition Law: A Review – Myles Bayliss

Digital platforms have rapidly become a major presence in worldwide marketplaces. The rapid ascension to dominance has attracted the attention of market regulators in numerous jurisdictions due to the unique business models of those platforms that often do not fit neatly within established understanding of business or marketplace competition. In this regard, the sufficiency and applicability of existing regulatory frameworks has become a key point of concern. To this end, many jurisdictions, including Australia, have undertaken reviews of their competition frameworks. This article canvasses and contrasts the developing positions of regulators in several jurisdictions in regard to the suitability of existing competition frameworks for regulating digital platforms.

A “Facelift” to the Abuse of Dominance The German Competition Perspective on Facebook – Dr Sabrina Frank and Malte Frank

Competition authorities worldwide perceive a need to address the new challenges posed by the tech industry, as big tech companies are continuously gaining market power. Their business conduct is overall viewed with suspicion, but it is in particular their data policies that are subject to scrutiny. While some competition authorities have started to ask lawmakers to broaden their fields of competence or to provide for additional enforcement measures, the German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt, FCO) has taken action against Facebook by making use of the existing legal framework. In November 2018, the FCO issued a prohibition order based on abuse of dominance and, simultaneously, data protection law while also relying on fundamental rights under the German constitution. This unprecedented approach has sparked an intense debate and led to divergent views in the injunctive relief proceedings. The court of first instance disagreed with the FCO. In June 2020, however, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, FCJ) confirmed the FCO’s decision in the result, but not in the reasoning. The article provides an overview on the FCO’s decision and the following legal discussions, the relevant case law and an outlook on the likely future development of the case.


  • Authorised Co-operation during the COVID-19 Pandemic William Georgiou and Rosannah Healy


  • Interest as Compensation under the Australian Consumer Law Shane Stewart

CASE NOTESEditor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC

  • A Compelling Outcome: The High Court Invigorates s 155 Alexander Shepherd
  • Full Steam Ahead or Gone Off the Rails: Merger Analysis after Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd Michael Gvozdenovic and Stephen Puttick


  • Competition Policy in Post-COVID-19 World Alex Sundakov

REPORT FROM AFRICAEditor: Lesley Morphet

  • African Competition Law Enforcement in a Time of Crisis: The Case of COVID-19 Lesley Morphet


  • The European Commission’s Proposal for an Ex-Ante Regulation of Large Online Platforms as Part of the Digital Services Act Package Tom Pick and Valentin Deprez

REPORT FROM RUSSIAEditor: Evgeny Khokhlov

  • Recent Trends in Antitrust Regulation in the Eurasian Economic Union Evgeny Khokhlov and Anna Zabolotnykh


For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 28 No 3 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

For general queries, please contact: [email protected].