This blog post, containing reflections on the CREATE public lecture delivered by Amelia Fletcher, is written by attendee Marlowe Crick, a 4th Year Scots Law LLB Student at the University of Glasgow with a keen interest in Competition Law.
Attending the CREATe public lecture on 7 February, where Amelia Fletcher delivered an insightful talk on ‘the implications of behavioural economics for the pro-competitive platform regulation’, was an enriching experience.
The CREATe seminar was an example of the best that academic events have to offer: a blend of intellectual curiosity, professional atmosphere, and a genuine passion for the topic at hand. The attendees, mostly students, academics, and industry professionals, were eager to dive into discussions about the future of competition law in digital markets. The environment was interactive, with time allocated for questions and debates, fostering a sense of community with a welcoming touch of informality where everyone was encouraged to share their thoughts. I found this Q&A process particularly engrossing as the focus of my dissertation this year is on how competition authorities must reframe regulation in light of the digital economy and its idiosyncrasies.
What stood out the most was the seamless integration of professional and academic perspectives. On one hand, the talk maintained a high level of rigor, diving deep into legal and economic concepts; on the other, the atmosphere remained approachable, with Amelia Fletcher explaining her points in a clear and relatable way. It was a stimulating experience that allowed me, as a student, to feel that I was a part of the conversation rather than a passive listener and led me down the correct routes for further research of behavioural economics for my upcoming dissertation in law.
Amelia Fletcher’s expertise is widely recognized in the world of competition law. Having served in senior roles as the Chief Economist at the OFT and a non-executive director of the CMA. Fletcher, therefore, has a wealth of practical experience in navigating the regulatory challenges posed by competition law. In addition to her role in policymaking, she is also an academic who has contributed significantly to research on the economics of competition law, (an economist by profession) thus making her uniquely positioned to discuss both the theoretical and practical aspects of the subject.
Fletcher’s ability to distil complex economic concepts and present them in a digestible format was one of the most striking aspects of the seminar. She discussed the importance of balancing the need for competition with the realities of the digital economy, all while maintaining a focus on explaining behavioural economics in simpler terms. Which – as other economists present at the talk noted – can be very jargon heavy and difficult to understand.
Amelia Fletcher’s talk provided a nuanced perspective on the challenges that competition law faces in the context of the exploitation of behavioural economics in digital markets. She introduced some of the most interesting and dangerous manifestations of behavioural economics, such as status quo bias and heuristics, and how these natural human responses can be manipulated via ‘harmful choice architecture,’ or the disappearance of price as a constraint in digital economies.
One way she did so was by pointing us towards her brilliant and varied literature within the area. Works such as ‘Harmful Online Choice Architecture’ (Busch & Fletcher), and the paper which supported the talk, ‘Implications of Behavioural Economics for the Pro-Competitive Platform Regulation’ (Vasas & Flecther).
One of the most eye-opening reflections which this talk drove me to as a student was the profoundly manipulative yet largely unpunished use of choice architecture by the incumbent tech-oligopolists. Its prevalence in digital platforms is widespread and it seems ‘decisions’ (or lack thereof) are obscured at every turn. The information is meticulously and intentionally laid out to exploit the human brain’s natural workings and keep consumers hooked on that platform’s service or even other services offered in less dominant markets, such as the infamous self-preferencing displayed by Google in Google Shopping.
Additional salient issues that Fletcher pointed the audience to were the practical implications of 20 years of behavioural economics. She explained that many consumers enjoy the ease of non-decision, citing the pertinent example of the public outcry in Europe at the fact Google search no longer defaults to Google Maps. This happened due to its incompatibility with the new Digital Markets Act. On reflection this raises interesting questions of cause or effect: Are Google so popular because they are the best? Or are they the most popular because of entrenched dominance and human beings’ natural status-quo bias?
Finally, Fletcher called for a greater understanding of behavioural economics on the regulatory side. Even in new acts such as the DMA, she contends that in order for this legislation or any like it to actually prevent digital gatekeepers from a practical standpoint, they require a better understanding of the tools at the disposal of GAFA such as A/B testing.
Amelia Fletcher’s seminar really afforded my research a new lease of life. Acting as a springboard to new ideas. This was very valuable to me both as a keen competition law student and as someone who was experiencing some writer’s block on my dissertation.
The rapid growth and dominance of digital platforms have raised significant challenges for traditional regulatory frameworks, requiring us to rethink how we define market power, consumer harm, and anti-competitive practices. Fletcher’s insights provided me with a deeper understanding of the evolving landscape of competition law and the specific need for competition authorities to address the knowledge and testing gap between themselves as regulators and the incumbent tech giants as abusers of human behaviour.
The seminar not only reinforced my interest in competition law in digital markets but also inspired me to think critically about how competition law and economics can intersect with human behaviour. It also has led to some (hopefully convincing) conclusions on how to reflect these emerging novel abuses in my own writing.
You can access the recording of the Public Lecture on the CREATe’s Youtube Channel.