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

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).

      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

      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 Reto M. Hilty 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
      • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08
      • Chinese Translation of the Position Statement

      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 Reto M. Hilty 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

      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)

      Vorträge