Legal Issues of Online Reputation Portability in the Digital Economy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25170/perkotaan.v15i2.5670Keywords:
Online Reputation, Portability, Data Protection, Lock-in, Competition LawAbstract
Reputation influences the level of trust and expectation of others either in social or business interactions. It becomes more important in the digital society, where interactions are often faceless and intangible. However, online reputation systems are usually built within a certain environment, thus locally, and cannot be used beyond that particular environment. A question arises whether such a local online reputation system could lead to lock-in problems that adversely affect competition. This paper begins the analysis by examining the legal aspects of user review as a set of information provided by a reviewer and the reputation as information about the reviewee provided to (other) users. To analyze the legal aspects of online reputation portability, the paper discusses three key issues: first, the legal status of user reviews and addresses the issues of online reputation portability, as recognized under the new Indonesian Data Protection Act, Law No. 27 of 2022, in comparison to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Second, it explores whether the limitation of the use of online reputation leads to lock-in problems that might justify the intervention of competition law. Third, it examines online reputation as a reviewee’s asset and the impact of its limitation of use to competition in the viewpoint of Indonesian competition law under Law No. 5 of 1999 compared to EU competition law under Article 102 TFEU.
References
Oxford Dictionary on reputation <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/reputation> accessed 30 January 2015.
A Jøsang, R Ismail, & C Boyd, ‘A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision’ (2007) 42(2) Decision Support Systems, 618, 621.
C Dellarocas, ‘The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Reputation Systems’, (2003) 49(10) Management Science, 1407, 1413.
H Li, M Benyoucef, & G van Bochmann, ‘Towards a Global Online Reputation’ (2009) Proceedings, ACM MEDES, Lyon, France, 377, 377.
C Dellarocas, (n 3), 1409.
DJ Kim, DL Ferrin, & HR Rao, ‘A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents’ (2008) 44 Decision Support Systems 544, 544.
H Li, M Benyoucef, & G van Bochmann, (n 5).
SS Kumar & P Koster, ‘Portable Reputation: Proving Ownership of Reputations Across Portals‘, Information and System Security Group, Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands 21, 21 <http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-504/CAT09_Proceedings_4.pdf> accessed 4 December 2014.
DJ Kim, DL Ferrin, & HR Rao, (n 7), 544-545.
DJ Kim, DL Ferrin, & HR Rao, (n 7), 544-545.
A Abdul-Rahman & S Hailes, ‘Supporting Trust in Virtual Communities’ (2000) Proceedings, the 3rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 4-7, 2000, Maui, Hawaii, 1, 1.
M Benyoucef, H Li, & G van Bochmann, (n 8), 181.
L Aroyo, P De Meo, & D Ursion, ‘Trust and reputation in Internetworking Systems’ 1, 5 <http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-590/sasweb10_5.pdf> accessed 28 November 2014.
L Aroyo, P De Meo, & D Ursion, (n 15).
DJ Kim, DL Ferrin, & HR Rao, (n 7), 556.
I Graef, SY Wahyuningtyas, & P Valcke, Assessing Data Access Issues in Online Platforms (2015) 39(5) Telecommunications Policy 375, 376.
P Resnick & R Zeckhauer, ‘Trust among Strangers in Internet Transactions: Empirical Analysis From eBay’s Reputation System’ in Baye, M., & Maxwell, J., (Eds.), The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce (Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Volume 11), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 127, 130.
P Resnick, R Zeckhauer, J Swanson, & K Lockwood, ‘The Value of Reputation on eBay: A Controlled Experiment’ (2006) 9(2) Experimental Economics 79, 82.
P Resnick, R Zeckhauer, J Swanson, & K Lockwood, (n 19), 87.
S David & T Pinch, ‘Six degrees of reputation: the use and abuse of online review and recommendation systems’ (2006) 11(3) First Monday <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1590/1505#d2> accessed 9 December, 2014.
Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2022 Nomor 196.
Article 28G jo. 28J of Constitution of 1945 of the Republic of Indonesia.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
EC Directive No. 95/46/EC 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data [1995] OJ 1995 L 281/31.
A Bensoussan (Ed.), General Data Protection Regulation: Texts, Commentaries and Practical Guidelines (Wolters Kluwer, Mechelen 2017), p. 73.
P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 62.
S Steinbrecher & S Schiffner, ‘Interoperability of Trust and Reputation Tolls‘ in Camenisch, J., Fischer-Hübner, S., and Rannenberg, K. (Eds.) Privacy and Identity Management for Life (Springer, Heidelberg-Dordrecht-London-New York 2011), p. 145.
RG Holcombe, ‘The Theory of Theory of Public Goods’ (1997) 10(1) Review of Austrian Economics, p. 1.
RG Holcombe, ‘The Theory of Theory of Public Goods’ (1997) 10(1) Review of Austrian Economics, p. 1.
JAT Fairfeld and C Engel, ‘Privacy as A Public Good’ (2015) 65(3) Duke Law Journal, p. 387.
M Desmarais-Tremblay, ‘On the Definition of Public Goods. Assessing Richard Musgrave’s Contribution (2014) Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 2014.05 -ISSN : 1955-611X. p. 2; JE Stiglitz, ‘Knowledge As A Global Public Good’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999), p. 308; HS Banzhaf, ‘The Market for Local Public Goods’ (2014) 64(4) Case Western Reserve Law Review, p. 1445, R Cornes and T Sandler, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996), p. 8.
JE Stiglitz, ‘Knowledge As A Global Public Good’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999), p. 309.
P Drahos, ‘The Regulation of Public Goods’ (2004) 7(2) Journal of International Economic Law, p. 326-327.
JE Stiglitz, ‘Knowledge As A Global Public Good’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999).
J Bessen, ‘Open Source Software-Free Provision of Complex Public Goods’ (July 2005) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=588763> or <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.588763> accessed 4 August 2017.
DL Spar, ‘The Public Face of Cyberspace’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999), p. 344.
JAT Fairfeld and C Engel, ‘Privacy as A Public Good’ (2015) 65(3) Duke Law Journal.
JE Stiglitz, ‘Knowledge As A Global Public Good’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999), p. 309.
E Stiglitz, ‘Knowledge as A Global Public Good’, in I Kaul, I Grunberg, and MA Stern, (Eds.), Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 1999), p. 309-311.
A Bensoussan (Ed.), General Data Protection Regulation: Texts, Commentaries and Practical Guidelines (Wolters Kluwer, Mechelen 2017), p. 79.
Article 20 of 4 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) lists numerous requirements for the application of the right to data portability.
P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 168.
P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 169.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2106] OJ L 119/1.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, WP 242 (2016), p. 17; see also Recital (26) GDPR.
P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 170.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, WP 242 (2016), p. 8-9; P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 172.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, WP 242 (2016), p. 8; P Voigt and A von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection (GDPR) A Practical Guide (Springer, Cham 2017), p. 172.
Article 5 of the DPA.
Article 6 of the DPA.
Article 7 of the DPA.
Article 8 of the DPA.
Article 9 of the DPA.
Article 10 of the DPA.
Article 11 of the DPA.
Article 12 of the DPA.
Article 13 of the DPA.
See G Buttarelli (European Data Protection Supervisor) addressing silo mentality, sharing the view of the President of the European Commission, in G Buttarelli, ‘Privacy and Competition Law in Digital Markets’, Speaking points at the European Parliament´s Privacy Platform, Brussels, 25 January 2015, p. 3 <https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Speeches/2015/15-09-24_ERA_GB_EN.pdf> accessed 24 February 2015.
See MO Mackenrodt, ‘Assessing the Effects of Intellectual Property Rights in Networks Standards’ in J Drexl, (Ed.), Research Handbook on Competition Law and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2008), p. 81-82; M Bijlsma, P De Bijl, & V Kocsis, ‘Competition, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights in Software Markets’ (2009) 181CPB Document.
Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (1997) OJ C 372/5, para 7.
Article 19 lit. (a) of Law No. 5 of 1999 reads: “Business undertakings are prohibited from conducting one or more activities, either individually or jointly with other entrepreneurs, that can result in monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition by: a. refusing and/or hampering certain business undertakings from conducting the same type of business in the relevant market; …”
PW Heermann, in K Hansen and others, (Ed.), Undang-undang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Law Concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition), Katalis, Jakarta, 2002, Article 25, para. 12; SY Wahyuningtyas, Unilateral Restraints in the Retail Business: A Comparative Study on Competition Law in Germany and Indonesia, Stämpfli Publisher, Volume 27 of Munich Series on European and International Antitrust Law, 2011, p. 139.
SY Wahyuningtyas, (n 61), p. 142.
KPPU Decision No. 08/KPPU-L/2003 – Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), KPPU Decision No. 02/KPPU-I/2004 – Telekom SLI, KPPU Decision No. 06/KPPU-L/2004 – ABC, KPPU Decision No. 02/KPPU-L/2005 – Carrefour, KPPU Decision No. 05/KPPU-L/2014 – BRI.
M. Mueller, J. Mathiason, and H. Klein, ‘The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime’, 13(2) Global Governance 2007, p. 250.
