Klaus Wiedemann

Doktorand und wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter

Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht

+49 89 24246-5407
klaus.wiedemann(at)ip.mpg.de

Arbeitsbereiche:

Bürgerliches Recht, Internationales Recht, Datenschutzrecht, rechtliche Implikationen der datengetriebenen Wirtschaft

Wissenschaftlicher Werdegang

Seit November 2015
Doktorand und wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb (Arbeitsbereich Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl, LL.M. (Berkeley))

Arbeit an einer Dissertation zu rechtlichen Fragestellungen der datengetriebenen Wirtschaft

2015
Abschluss: Zweites juristisches Staatsexamen (Stuttgart)

2013 - 2015
Juristischer Vorbereitungsdienst des Landes Baden-Württemberg am Landgericht Mosbach (Schwerpunkt: Internationales Privatrecht) mit Stationen u.a. bei der Sozietät Linklaters LLP in Frankfurt a.M. (Fachbereich Litigation) und an der University of Oxford, Institute of European and Comparative Law in Oxford (Großbritannien)

2013
Abschluss: Erste juristische Prüfung, Heidelberg (Deuschland)

2007 - 2013
Studium der Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität Würzburg (Deutschland), am Trinity College Dublin (Irland) und an der Universität Heidelberg (Schwerpunkt: Völkerrecht)

Berufserfahrung

2013
Projektmitarbeit im Bereich Kartellrecht in der Sozietät Gleiss Lutz in Stuttgart

2011
Studentische Hilfskraft am Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht in Heidelberg

2010
Research Assistant am Institute of Food and Health des University College Dublin (Irland)

2008 - 2009
Studentische Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Deutsches und Europäisches Handels- und Gesellschaftsrecht (Universität Würzburg)

Mitgliedschaften

European Law Students’ Association (ELSA)

Deutsche Vereiningung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz e.V. (GRUR e.V.)

Juristen Alumni Würzburg e.V.

Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA)

Publikationen

Aufsätze

To discriminate or not to discriminate? Personalised pricing in online markets as exploitative abuse of dominance, European Journal of Law and Economics 2019, 09.12.2019 (gemeinsam mit Marco Botta). DOI

  • The advent of big data analytics has favoured the emergence of forms of price discrimination based on consumers’ profiles and their online behaviour (i.e. personalised pricing). The paper analyses this practice as a possible exploitative abuse by dominant online platforms. The paper argues that, in view of its “mixed” effect on consumers’ welfare, personalised pricing requires a case-by-case assessment under EU competition law and thus it should not be banned a priori. However, in view of the recent case law of the European Court of Justice on price discrimination, the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the European Commission would face a high burden of proof to sanction this conduct under Art. 102(c) TFEU. Finally, the paper argues that, due to its case-by-case approach, competition law seems more suitable than omnibus regulation to tackle the negative effects that personalised pricing could have on consumers’ welfare. In particular, an NCA/the European Commission could negotiate with online platforms different kinds of behavioural commitments: transparency requirements, limits on data collection/user profiling, rights to opt out of personalised pricing and the obligation to share customers’ data with competitors could significantly tame the risks of personalised pricing.

Exploitative Conducts in Digital Markets: Time for a Discussion after the Facebook Decision, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10, 8 (2019), 465 - 478 (gemeinsam mit Marco Botta). DOI

    The Interaction of EU Competition, Consumer, and Data Protection Law in the Digital Economy: The Regulatory Dilemma in the Facebook Odyssey, The Antitrust bulletin 64, 3 (2019), 428 - 446 (gemeinsam mit Marco Botta). DOI

    • This article analyzes the interaction of EU competition, consumer and data protection law in the digital economy. We compare the objectives, rules and enforcement structures of these legal regimes, and we discuss market failures that justify regulatory intervention in digital markets. In particular, the Facebook investigations in Germany and Italy are selected as a case study. The Bundeskartellamt’s investigations are remarkable, being the first in which an exploitative abuse of dominance involving a digital platform has been decided under competition law. These we compare with their Italian counterpart, where the AGCM has recently sanctioned Facebook for behavior similar to that investigated in Germany. Yet, the Italian case has been decided under consumer, rather than competition law. This shows the regulatory dilemma faced by European antitrust authorities, which are currently struggling to find a solution to the market failures arising in digital markets.

    Zwischen Berufsfreiheit und Ausbildungsmonopol – rechtliche Vorgaben für den Wechsel des Bundeslandes als Rechtsreferendar, JURA – Juristische Ausbildung 38, 6 (2016), 674 - 685 (gemeinsam mit Lars Dittrich). DOI

      European Meat Inspection – Continuity and Change in Building a (more) Risk-Based System of Regulation, European Food and Feed Law Review 6, 2 (2011), 96 - 103 (gemeinsam mit James Lawless).

        Entscheidungsanmerkungen

        The ECJ’s Decision in "Planet49" (Case C-673/17): A Cookie Monster or Much Ado About Nothing?, IIC - international review of intellectual property and competition law 51 (2020), 543 - 553. DOI

        • In "Planet49", the ECJ ruled that a pre-selected checkbox on a website (which the user must actively deselect to refuse consent) does not constitute valid consent under data protection law. In this context, the Court also provided guidance on the extent of the existing informational duties. It furthermore found that it does not make a difference with respect to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive whether or not information that is stored or accessed on the terminal device of a user constitutes personal data. The majority of these findings is not surprising and in accordance with the values underlying today’s data protection and privacy regulations. Unfortunately, the ECJ failed to address the role Art. 7(2) GDPR plays for online declarations referring to both consent and other matters. It thus missed a valuable opportunity to provide further clarity on how consent can be given in a way that is compliant with data protection regulations and user-friendly at the same time. Unfortunately, the Court was not asked to show a way out of the dogmatic Gordian knot arising from the German Telemedia Act, parts of which are still in clear contradiction to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive.

        Forschungspapiere

        EU Competition Law Enforcement Vis-À-Vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy Exploring the Terra Incognita (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 18-08), 2018, 90 S. (gemeinsam mit Marco Botta).

        • This paper analyses the enforcement of EU competition law vis-à-vis exploitative conducts by dominant online platforms. Firstly, it looks at the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning excessive and discriminatory pricing, as well as unfair contract clauses under Art. 102 TFEU. Afterwards, the challenges faced by National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the EU Commission in investigating exploitative conducts in data markets are discussed with a view to the CJEU case law. Finally, the paper looks at potential remedies that NCAs and the EU Commission could design in relation to exploitative conducts in data markets. The paper does not discuss the definition of the relevant market and the issue of market power of online platforms. It is argued that the data economy is characterized by a number of market failures that, in principle, justify EU competition policy intervention. Contrary to a view expressed in the literature, the authors argue that EU competition law should be enforced in digital markets, in spite of the overlaps with data protection and consumer law. In particular, it is argued that these three policy areas pursue different goals, have different scopes of application and different enforcement structures. Consequently, in spite of their “family ties”, one policy area should not prevent the enforcement of the others. At the same time, the authors recognize that – in view of the CJEU case law – Art. 102 TFEU should only be enforced vis-à-vis exploitative conducts in exceptional circumstances – i.e. in relation to “super dominant” online platforms and in markets characterized by high and stable entry barriers. Secondly, the paper argues that in view of the existing CJEU case law on excessive and discriminatory pricing, the NCAs and the EU Commission would face a very high burden of proof to sanction these practices in data markets. At the same time, the enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU might indeed be expected as regards unfair contractual terms. The current investigations by the Bundeskartellamt in the Facebook case and the recent Facebook/WhatsApp merger case could indicate a new enforcement trend to this regard. Finally, in terms of remedies, the paper argues in view of the lack of precedents in this area that NCAs and the EU Commission should conclude behavioural commitments with dominant online platforms, rather than imposing financial penalties coupled with cease and desist orders. In particular, when designing these remedies, the NCAs and the EU Commission should take into consideration the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in order to fill the gaps in the current regulatory system via behavioural commitments.
        • Available at SSRN

        Automated Processing of Personal Data for the Evaluation of Personality Traits: Legal and Ethical Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 18-04), 2018, 34 S.

        • This paper examines the approach under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to profiling and (automated) decision-making as well as the corresponding legal and ethical implications. The definition of profiling under the GDPR is analysed in relation to different degrees of automation when it comes to decision-making based on the processing of personal or non-personal data. A two-step approach to profiling and decision-making, which can be found in the structure and wording of the GDPR, is described and analysed. It is argued that the use of this model helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted and how the two steps are interconnected. Furthermore, the two-step approach allows to identify various legal implications of profiling and the corresponding decision-making, such as those related to privacy and economic freedom. Further, the discussion of ethical aspects draws on two recent and controversial use cases. The first example deals with discriminatory effects that may result from profiling. The second one concerns opaque automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring. This ethical assessment is based on the ethical framework supplied by the wording of the GDPR.
        • Available at SSRN

        Stellungnahmen

        Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

        Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

        • This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
        • MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
        • Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
        • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08

        Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of August 16, 2016 - On the current debate on exclusive rights and access rights to data at the European level, 2016, 12 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

        • Also published in GRUR Int under the title: Ausschließlichkeits- und Zugangsrechte an Daten - Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 16.8.2016 zur aktuellen europäischen Debatte, GRUR Int 65,10 (2016), 914 - 918
        • This position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has been released against the background of the European Free Flow of Data Initiative of the European Commission and the on-going political, economic and academic debate on the related issues. The Institute takes a stance as regards the introduction of exclusive rights in data, special legal protection of algorithms used in data analysis, as well as the questions on the applicability of the current EU legal framework for the sui-generis database rights and trade secrets to individual data and data-sets. The Institute sees no economic justification for the introduction of new exclusive rights in data, which could even hamper the functioning of the data-driven economy. In contrast, the statement emphasizes the importance of access to data in order to ensure the proper functioning of data-driven markets. It identifies the need for further research in this regard and recommends the general approach and principles to be considered if the special regulation of access to data is necessary.
        • Positionspaper-Data-Eng-08-31_def-korr Copy.pdf
        • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-10 under the title: Data Ownership and Access to Data - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 16 August 2016 on the Current European Debate

        Vorträge

        Dezember 2019

        Data Protection and Credit Scoring in the US and the EU – A comparative Perspective

        Gastvorlesung als Teil der Vorlesung „Comparative Law“ von Frau Prof. Dr. Laura Carlson
        Ort: Universität Stockholm (Schweden)


        Juni 2019

        Datenschutzregulierung in der EU und den USA: Ein Rechtsvergleich am Beispiel der Zulässigkeit des sog. Credit-Scorings

        5. Tagung GRUR Junge Wissenschaft – Kolloquium zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Urheber- und Medienrecht 
        Ort: Universität Leipzig


        Dezember 2018

        Data Protection and Credit Scoring in the US and the EU – A comparative Perspective

        Gastvorlesung als Teil der Vorlesung „Comparative Law“ von Frau Prof. Dr. Laura Carlson
        Ort: Universität Stockholm (Schweden)


        September 2018

        EU Competition Law Remedies vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy: Exploring the Terra Incognita (zusammen mit Marco Botta)

        35th EALE Annual Conference 
        Ort: Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Mailand (Italien)


        Juni 2018

        EU Competition Law Remedies vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy: Exploring the Terra Incognita (zusammen mit Marco Botta)

        13th ASCOLA Conference „The Effects of Digitization, Globalization, and Nationalism on Competition Law“ 
        Ort: NYU School of Law, New York (USA)


        Juni 2018

        Legal and Economic Implications of Data Protection and Profiling

        Workshop „Competition Law and Policy for Algorithm-Driven Markets“ 
        Ort: Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München


        Dezember 2017

        Data Protection and Credit Scoring in the US and the EU – A comparative Perspective

        Gastvorlesung als Teil der Vorlesung „Comparative Law“ von Frau Prof. Dr. Laura Carlson
        Ort: Universität Stockholm (Schweden)


        Juni 2017

        Automated Processing of Personal Data for the Evaluation of Personality Traits – Legal and Ethical Issues

        Konferenz „Ethics in Innovation“
        Ort: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, München


        Juni 2017

        The current Debate on Data Ownership and Access to Data: First lessons from in-depth Industry Interviews (zusammen mit Franziska Greiner)

        Konferenz „The Many Dimensions of Data“
        Ort: Télécom ParisTech, Paris (Frankreich)


        Februar 2017

        Zur Zulässigkeit von Profiling als Teil der digitalen Wirtschaft – Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick

        Jour Fixe des Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht
        Ort: Universität Heidelberg


        Dezember 2016

        Academic Freedom and the Rights to University Teaching Materials: A Comparison of Swedish, American and German Approaches

        Gastvorlesung als Teil der Vorlesung „Comparative Law“ von Frau Prof. Dr. Laura Carlson
        Ort: Universität Stockholm (Schweden)


        Juni 2016

        Panel2: Daten als Wertschöpfungsfaktor: Gesetzgeberischer Handlungsbedarf?

        Jahrestagung des Alumni-Vereins des MPI
        Ort: Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München


        Dezember 2015

        Academic Freedom and the Rights to University Teaching Materials: A Comparison of Swedish, American and German Approaches

        Gastvorlesung als Teil der Vorlesung „Comparative Law“ von Frau Prof. Dr. Laura Carlson
        Ort: Universität Stockholm (Schweden)