Jure Globocnik

Doctoral Student and Junior Research Fellow

Intellectual Property and Competition Law

+49 89 24246-594

Areas of Interest

Legal Implications of the Data-Driven Economy; Data Protection Law; Competition Law; European Economic Law

Academic Résumé

Since 2017
Doctoral Student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

2016 – 2017
Internship at the European Commission in Brussels

2014 – 2016
Postgraduate degree in International and European Business Law (LL.M.Eur.) at the Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich

2014 – 2016
Master of Laws at the University of Ljubljana

Internships in international law firms in Stuttgart (antitrust law) and Ljubljana (business and contract law)

2009 – 2014
Bachelor of Laws at the University of Ljubljana as well as Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich (Erasmus exchange)

Academic Prizes and Scholarships

Prize of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana for outstanding study achievements

2014 – 2015
Scholarship of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

2008 – 2014
Zois-Scholarship (Slovenian government scholarship for talented students)


Journal Articles

My Data, My Terms: A Proposal for Personal Data Use Licenses, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 33 (2020) (together with Chris Donewald et al.).

Exclusionary Conduct in Data-Driven Markets: Limitations of Data Sharing Remedy, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 2020, forthcoming, 09.01.2020 (together with Vikas Kathuria). DOI

  • The natural consequence of finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU is to offset the harm to consumer welfare by restoring competition through effective remedies. As big data constitutes the most vital resource in data-driven markets, a dominant undertaking can exclude its rivals from accessing user data and thus deprive them of scale in markets that are characterised by network effects. Indeed, the European Commission found Google guilty of excluding its rivals in the Android licensing case by adopting this strategy. It is, however, unclear as to which remedy can most efficiently restore competition in such cases. This paper analyses the viability of mandatory data sharing as a remedy to restore competition in the affected market. The paper approaches this research question from both theoretical and practical standpoints. First, it analyses the viability of mandatory data sharing remedy from legal, economic and, technological perspective, followed by an assessment of such a remedy within the framework of the GDPR. Based on this comprehensive investigation, it concludes that mandatory data sharing is not the optimal solution to remedy loss to consumer welfare. In view of this, reliance can be placed on other behavioural and structural remedies.
  • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 19-04

The Right to Be Forgotten is Taking Shape: CJEU Judgments in GC and Others (C-136/17) and Google v CNIL (C-507/17), GRUR international 69, 4 (2020), 380 - 388. DOI

    On Joint Controllership for Social Plugins and Other Third-Party Content – a Case Note on the CJEU Decision in Fashion ID - Directive 95/46/EC, Arts. 2(d) and (h), 7(a) and (f), 10, IIC 50, 8 (2019), 1033 - 1044. DOI

    • In its decision in Fashion ID, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) assessed the responsibilities pertaining to the processing of personal data through a Facebook “Like” button embedded in a third-party website. The decision, which was not directed at Facebook Ireland, but at a comparatively small German online clothing retailer embedding the social plugin, reaffirms the preference of (German) authorities and consumer protection associations to regulate Facebook indirectly, i.e. through decisions directed against Facebook’s partners, which is seemingly the more feasible way. In the decision, the CJEU concluded that the website operator, and Facebook Ireland as the plugin provider are jointly responsible merely for the collection of personal data and its disclosure by transmission to Facebook Ireland, whereas the subsequent data processing operations fall under the sole responsibility of Facebook Ireland. This case note argues that this delineation does not sufficiently consider the technical reality behind such plugins. Further, it argues that the CJEU seems to have relied predominantly on the criterion of decisive (factual) influence on data processing, thereby departing from its previous case law. The CJEU further ruled that should joint data processing be based on webpage visitors’ consent, the latter has to be collected by the webpage operator. This solution creates a significant additional administrative burden for the involved companies. According to this case note, the decision on such a technical matter should rather have been left to the disposition of the companies.

    Smartphone wars und Missbrauch marktbeherrschender Stellung durch Inhaber standardessentieller Patente, Podjetje in delo - Revija za gospodarsko, delovno in socialno pravo Revija za gospodarsko, delovno in socialno pravo 43, 3/4 (2017), 566 - 597.

      Laesio enormis – institut preteklosti? [Laesio enormis – ein Rechtsinstitut der Vergangenheit?], Pravnik 71, 1-2 (2016), 5 - 28.

        Conference Reports

        "Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Competition: New Tools, New Rules?" – Report on the Conference of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in collaboration with the MPI Alumni Association in Munich, 5 July 2019, GRUR Int 68, 8/9 (2019), 794 - 798 (together with Luc Desaunettes, Heiko Richter).

        • Event: Conference of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in collaboration with the MPI Alumni Association, Munich, 2019-07-05

        Research Papers

        Datenzugang, Verbraucherinteressen und Gemeinwohl – Bericht über die Verbraucherrechtstage 2019 des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz in Berlin, 12. Und 13. Dezember 2019 (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper, No. 17), 2020, 22 pp. (together with Stefan Scheuerer). DOI

        • Der vorliegende Bericht bietet eine Zusammenfassung der Verbraucherrechtstage 2019, die am 12. und 13. Dezember 2019 vom Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz in Berlin organisiert wurden. Die Konferenz befasste sich mit dem Datenzugang unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Verbraucherinteressen und Gemeinwohl. Führende Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftler sowie Beamte und Politiker widmeten sich der Analyse des regulatorischen Rahmens für die Ausgestaltung aktueller und künftiger Datenzugangsregime in der digitalen Wirtschaft. Die Konferenz war in vier wissenschaftliche Panels unterteilt, die den übergeordneten rechtlichen und ökonomischen Rahmen, die bereits existierenden Datenzugangsregime und potenziellen Reformbedarf zum Gegenstand hatten. Diese wurden ergänzt durch Keynote-Vorträge zu aktuellen politischen Entwicklungen sowie eine abschließende, rechtspolitische Podiumsdiskussion. Ein englischsprachiger Tagungsband wird voraussichtlich im Laufe des Jahres 2020 erscheinen.
        • This report summarizes the conference Verbraucherrechtstage 2019 (Consumer Law Days 2019), organised by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection on 12 and 13 December 2019 in Berlin. This year’s topic was data access with a special emphasis on consumer interests and public welfare. Leading legal and economic scholars as well as public servants and politicians came together to engage in fruitful discussions on designing the regulatory framework for data access in the digital economy. The conference was divided into four academic panels covering the wider economic and legal framework for data access, existing data access regimes and potential need for amendments. It additionally featured keynote speeches on current political developments and a concluding, policy-oriented panel discussion. An English language conference volume is expected to be published in the course of 2020.
        • Available at SSRN

        Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-13), 2019, 15 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

        • The present Q&A paper aims at providing an overview of artificial intelligence with a special focus on machine learning as a currently predominant subfield thereof. Machine learning-based applications have been discussed intensely in legal scholarship, including in the field of intellectual property law, while many technical aspects remain ambiguous and often cause confusion. This text was drafted by the Research Group on the Regulation of the Digital Economy of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in the pursuit of understanding the fundamental characteristics of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, that could potentially have an impact on intellectual property law. As a background paper, it provides the technological basis for the Group’s ongoing research relating thereto. The current version summarises insights gained from background literature research, interviews with practitioners and a workshop conducted in June 2019 in which experts in the field of artificial intelligence participated.
        • Available at SSRN


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


        Regulation of the Data-Driven Economy: Between Ownership and Access
        Seminar “The Law and the Challenges of the Digital (R)Evolution”
        Location: University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

        Exclusionary Conduct in Data-Driven Markets: Limitations of Data Sharing Remedy
        14th ASCOLA Conference “Challenges to Assumptions at the Basis of Competition Law”
        Location: Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France

        The Role of Data Portability in Data-Driven Economy
        Institute Seminar
        Location: Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition


        WS 2018/19

        Tutor for German Civil Law

        Location: Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich

        WS 2017/18

        Tutor for German Civil Law

        Location: Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich