본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

검색 중립성과 경쟁법 집행원리

Search Neutrality as a Guiding Principle for Competition Law and/or Government Regulation

이황|이상윤
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2019.11|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제40권 |pp. 260-305|DOI 10.35770/jkcl.2019.40..260

0

조회

0

다운로드

21

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

남용구글Googleabuse네이버Naver플랫폼 중립성platform neutralityself-preferencingsearch neutralitysearch bias검색 중립성검색 편향자기편애플랫폼 규칙(Reg. 2019/1150)Platform Regulation (Reg. 2019/1150)

초록

The concept of “search neutrality” is currently resonating in Korea as a guiding principle for competition law and/or digital platform regulation. The Korea Communications Commission adopted the so-called platform neutrality guidelines in 2017 and Korea’s competition authority, the Korea Fair Trade Commission, is likely to bring a competition action against search engines and platforms on the potential allegation of ‘non-neutral’ practices. Against this backdrop, the present paper questions the appropriateness of the concept of “search neutrality” as a guiding principle for Korea’s competition law and/or government regulation. To answer to that question, this article explores theoretical literature concerning the meaning of ‘search neutrality’ and examines the experiences of the United States (‘US’) and the European Union (‘EU’) in which the neutrality concept emerged, and concerns with search bias have been discussed in terms of ex ante and/or ex post regulation. Through this, the appropriateness and feasibility of search neutrality as a competition and/or regulation principle is analysed and reviewed. The research findings firstly show that the concept of search neutrality, in contrast to the analogous concept ‘net neutrality’, comprises a serious problem of definitional ambiguity and is based on the groundless premise that search services are indispensable or essential. Secondly, it is found that search neutrality has failed to guide competition policy and regulation in the US and the EU. Although the EU’s new Platform Regulation (Reg.2019/1150) and the Commission’s decision on Google’s self-preferencing may, to some extent, be pertinent to the search bias concerns, the authors clarify distinctions between search neutrality advocacy and the EU’s digital policy. As a conclusion, this study argues that any regulatory restraint towards search engines based on neutrality would be permissible and feasible only if it sticks to the basic principles of competition law, id est, the protection of consumer welfare or that of effective competition structure.

Abstract

The concept of “search neutrality” is currently resonating in Korea as a guiding principle for competition law and/or digital platform regulation. The Korea Communications Commission adopted the so-called platform neutrality guidelines in 2017 and Korea’s competition authority, the Korea Fair Trade Commission, is likely to bring a competition action against search engines and platforms on the potential allegation of ‘non-neutral’ practices. Against this backdrop, the present paper questions the appropriateness of the concept of “search neutrality” as a guiding principle for Korea’s competition law and/or government regulation. To answer to that question, this article explores theoretical literature concerning the meaning of ‘search neutrality’ and examines the experiences of the United States (‘US’) and the European Union (‘EU’) in which the neutrality concept emerged, and concerns with search bias have been discussed in terms of ex ante and/or ex post regulation. Through this, the appropriateness and feasibility of search neutrality as a competition and/or regulation principle is analysed and reviewed. The research findings firstly show that the concept of search neutrality, in contrast to the analogous concept ‘net neutrality’, comprises a serious problem of definitional ambiguity and is based on the groundless premise that search services are indispensable or essential. Secondly, it is found that search neutrality has failed to guide competition policy and regulation in the US and the EU. Although the EU’s new Platform Regulation (Reg.2019/1150) and the Commission’s decision on Google’s self-preferencing may, to some extent, be pertinent to the search bias concerns, the authors clarify distinctions between search neutrality advocacy and the EU’s digital policy. As a conclusion, this study argues that any regulatory restraint towards search engines based on neutrality would be permissible and feasible only if it sticks to the basic principles of competition law, id est, the protection of consumer welfare or that of effective competition structure.

참고문헌 (80)

  1. 곽주원, "검색 중립성에 대한 논의", 경쟁법연구, 28, pp.246~273 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
  2. 김윤정, "4차 산업혁명시대의 망 중립성 정책의 변화방향- EU와 미국의 변화를 중심으로 -", 경제규제와 법, 11(1), pp.95~117 (2018), 법학연구소
  3. "공정거래위원회 보도자료, 공정거래위원회 ‧ 한국산업조직학회 ‘플랫폼 경제의 경쟁정책’ 관련 정책 세미나 개최", ~ (2019)
  4. 검색의 중립성이 인터넷 생태계에 미치는 영향, "곽주원", 정보통신정책연구원, ~ (2013)
  5. 국내 망중립성 문제의 특수성과 대응방안, "김성환", 미디어미래연구소, ~ (2011)
  6. "유튜브 견제 나선 네이버... 공정위 우월적 지위남용 조사 착수" (2019), 김상윤[URL]
  7. "‘플랫폼 중립성’ 고시 제정한 방통위 “플랫폼에 중립성 잣대 들이댄 건 무리였다”" (2017), 김수연[URL]
  8. 김위근, "검색 중립성 논란에서 '이용자 주체'가 빠졌다", 신문과 방송, (517) (2014)
  9. 인터넷 상호접속 공정경쟁 이슈와 정책대안, "김희수", KISDI, ~, pp.KISDI 이슈 리포트(03-10호) (2003)
  10. 류민호, "검색중립성 연구에 대한 문헌분석: 주요 쟁점과 찬반 논점", 정보사회와 미디어, 16(3), pp.85~101 (2015), 한국정보사회학회
  11. "공정위, 네이버 급습 ... '검색시장 지배적 지위 남용' 혐의" (2018), 석민수[URL]
  12. 송태원, "인터넷 플랫폼 시장에서 경쟁제한의 우려와 규제방안에 대한 고찰", 경제법연구, 17(1), pp.107~138 (2018), 한국경제법학회[DOI]
  13. "검색중립성 정책, 딜레마 고려해야" (2013), 심재석[URL]
  14. "③구글도 발목잡힌 ‘검색중립성’" (2015), 양효석[URL]
  15. 오승한, "망 중립성 원칙의 변화내용과 위반행위 판단의 기준 - 2015년 미국 망 중립성 가이드라인을 중심으로 -", 아주법학, 9(3), pp.589~630 (2015), 법학연구소[DOI]
  16. 윤주, "검색편향에 대한 경쟁법 적용에 관한 비판적 고찰", 미국헌법연구, 29(2), pp.141~172 (2018), 미국헌법학회
  17. 집행위원회(EC), 구글의 애드센스 관련 시장지배적지위 남용행위에 대해 과징금 결정, "이상윤", ~, pp.유럽연합 경쟁법 동향 시리즈(17) (2019)
  18. 전성훈, "네이버-다음 동의의결(2014년)과 수직적 거래제한의 경쟁효과", 법경제학연구, 12(2), pp.177~206 (2015), 한국법경제학회
  19. 정찬모, "미국에서 검색중립성과 표현의 자유에 관한 법적 논쟁", IT와 법연구, (10), pp.77~115 (2015), IT와 법연구소
  20. 조성국, "인터넷 검색사업자의 경쟁법적 규제에 관한 연구 - 검색중립성 논의와 규제사례 및 그 시사점을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 31, pp.268~305 (2015), 한국경쟁법학회
  21. "포털의 ‘검색 중립성’ 가이드라인 세워야" (2012), 중앙일보[URL]
  22. 행정학용어표준화연구회, "이해하기 쉽게 쓴 행정학용어사전" (2010)
  23. "포털 '검색 중립성' 이용자 편에서 봐야" (2013), 황용석[URL]
  24. "Google Shopping Decision- First Urgent Comments" (2017)[URL]
  25. Antitrust, Regulation and the Neutrality Trap: A plea for a smart, evidence-based internet policy, "Andrea Renda", CEPS, ~, pp.CEPS Special Report No.104 (2015)
  26. "Amy Klobuchar wants to wield the White House to save net neutrality" (2019)[URL]
  27. Batya Friedman, "Bias in Computer Systems", ACM Transactions of Information Systems, 14(3), pp.330~ (1996)
  28. "The Democrats Are Trying to Bring Back a Free, Open Internet" (2019)[URL]
  29. Bundeskartellamt, "Arbeitspapier – Marktmacht von Plattformen und Netzwerken, B6-113:15", ~ (2016)
  30. "Net Neutrality Vote Passes House, Fulfilling Promise by Democrats" (2019)[URL]
  31. "EU fines Google for past AdSense conduct" (2019)[URL]
  32. Conseil National du Numérique, "Platform Neutrality: Building an open and sustainable digital environment", Opinion No.2014-2 of the French Digital Council on platform neutrality, ~ (2014)
  33. Daniel A. Crane, "Search Neutrality as an Antitrust Principle", George Mason Law Review, 19, pp.1199~ (2012)
  34. Search Neutrality as an Antitrust Principle, "Daniel A. Crane", ~, pp.Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 11-016 (2011)
  35. "Forget Consumer Welfare. This Antitrust Movement Targets Power Instead" (2018)[URL]
  36. European Commission, "Communication, Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Art. 82 of the EC Treaty (2009", C 45, pp.2009, ~
  37. European Commission, "Proposal for a Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services", COM(2018) 238 final, ~ (2018)
  38. European Commission, "Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment, Annexes, Accompanying the document, Proposal for a Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services", SWD(2018) 138 final, ~ (2018)
  39. European Commission, "Staff Working Document, Online Platforms, Accompanying the document Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market", SWD(2016) 172 final, ~ (2016)
  40. Synopsis Report on the Public Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries and the Collaborative Economy, "European Commission", ~ (2016)
  41. European Commission, "Communication on the Mid-Term Reivew on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy, A Connected Digital Single Market for All", COM(2017) 228 final, ~ (2017)
  42. "Press release, ‘Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google’ IP/10/1625" (2010)[URL]
  43. "Press Release, ‘Commission takes further steps in investigations alleging Google's comparison shopping and advertising-related practices breach EU rules’ IP/16/2532" (2016)[URL]
  44. "Press Release, IP/89/330" (1989)[URL]
  45. European Parliament, "Resolution on Online platforms and Digital Single Market, P8_TA(2017)0272", ~
  46. European Parliament, "Resolution on Supporting Consumer Rights in the Digital Single market, P8_TA(2014)0071", ~
  47. "Press release, ‘Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search’" (2013)[URL]
  48. "Federal Trade Commission’s Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act" (2015)[URL]
  49. "Federal Trade Commission’s Statement Regarding Google’s Search Practices In the Matter of Google Inc.", FTC File Number 111-0163, ~ (2013)
  50. Firso Bostoen, "Neutrality, Fairness or Freedom? Principles for Platform Regulation’", Internet Policy Review, 7(1), pp.1~ (2018)
  51. "The Commission proposes a Regulation on platform-to-business trading practices" (2018)[URL]
  52. "Net Neutrality in Europe" (2019)[URL]
  53. "Net Neutrality Legislation in States" (2019)[URL]
  54. "Search Engines and Ethics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (2016)[URL]
  55. Ioannis Lianos, "Market Dominance and Search Quality in the Search Engine Market", Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(2), pp.419~ (2013)
  56. Competition Policy for the Digital Era’ Special Advisers, "Jacques Crémer", European Commission, ~ (2019)
  57. James Grimmelmann, "The Structure of Search Engine Law", Iowa Law Review, 93, pp.1~ (2007)
  58. James Grimmelmann, "The next digital decade: Essays on the future of the Internet", pp.435~ (2010)
  59. "Joint letter from the governments of eleven Member States to Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip", ~ (2016)
  60. "If Search Neutrality is the Answer, What’s the Question?, ICLE Antitrust & Consumer Protection Program White Paper Series" (2011)[URL]
  61. "Interview: Door Google en Facebook zijn we in onze eigen Truman Show beland" (2017)[URL]
  62. Lina M. Khan, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox", Yale Law Journal, 126(3), pp.710~ (2017)
  63. Lina M. Khan, "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce", Columbia Law Review, 119(4), pp.973~ (2019)
  64. Mark A. Jamison, "Should Google Be Regulated As A Public Utility?", Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy, 9(2), pp.223~ (2013)
  65. "Google’s €2.4bn fine is small change - the EU has bigger plans" (2017)[URL]
  66. Nicolas Petit, "European Competition Policy in Digital: What's Next?", CPI's Europe Colum, ~ (2019)
  67. "Self-Preferencing: Yet Another Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles" (2019)[URL]
  68. "The report on ‘Competition policy for the digital era’ is out: why change the law if there is no evidence? And how?" (2019)[URL]
  69. Peter Alexiadis, "EU Net Neutrality Policy and the Mobile Sector: The Need For Competition Law Standards", Concurrences Review, (3) (2016)
  70. Phillip E. Areeda, "Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles", Antitrust Law Journal, 58, pp.841~ (1990)
  71. "Initial Reactions to the Infringement Decision in Google Search" (2017)[URL]
  72. Pinar Akman, "The Theory of Abuse in Google Search: A Positive and Normative Assessment Under EU Competition Law", Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 2017(2), pp.301~ (2017)
  73. "Wirtschaftsprofis begrüßen Strafe gegen Google" (2019)[URL]
  74. Le numérique et les droits fondamentaux, "René Cassin", Conseil d’État, ~ (2014)
  75. Richard J. Gilbert, "The Antitrust Revolution" (2017)
  76. Richard Whish, "Competition Law" (2018)
  77. Sebastian Wismer, "Market Definition in Multi-sided Markets", OECD, Rethinking Antitrust Tools for Multi-Sided Platforms, ~ (2018)
  78. Tim Wu, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination", Journal on Telecom and High Tech Law, 2, pp.141~ (2003)
  79. Tim Wu, "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age", ~ (2018)
  80. "Amazon could face heightened antitrust scrutiny under a new agreement between U.S. regulators" (2019)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

인터넷 검색사업자의 경쟁법적 규제에 관한 연구 - 검색중립성 논의와 규제사례 및 그 시사점을 중심으로 -이호영, 조성국한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2015 · 제31권 유럽에서의 망 중립성 및 검색 중립성 규제에 관한 연구: 유럽연합과 영국의 관련 규제, 사례 및 이론을 중심으로최요섭EU연구소 · EU연구2014 · 제37호수직통합 온라인 플랫폼의 자사우대 행위의 경쟁제한성 판단기준에 관한 연구이호영한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2023 · 제47권 Adapting European Competition Law Proposals for the Digital Market to the Korean Regime최요섭법학연구원 · 법학논총2020 · 제48권 인터넷 검색시장에서의 공정성 문제 - Google 사례를 중심으로 -최난설헌한국경제법학회 · 경제법연구2015 · 제14권 제3호디지털 플랫폼 투명화·공정화 법제의 동향과 전망: EU, 일본, 우리나라 법제의 주요 내용과 평가에 대한 비교법적 검토박경미고려대학교 법학연구원 · 고려법학2020 · 제99호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

가맹사업법상 계약의 존속에 대한 규제조혜신pp. 3-30가맹사업법상 규제의 대리점법 도입의 적절성 - 정보제공, 계약의 갱신‧해지, 단체구성‧교섭 측면을 중심으로 -정주미pp. 31-55유통 4.0 시대의 경쟁이슈최난설헌pp. 56-83디지털 인플루언서 마케팅과 전자상거래 소비자보호법 상 규율 - 경제적 대가를 표시하지 않은 기만광고 관련 규제를 중심으로 -최요섭pp. 84-114계약자유와 공정거래권오승pp. 117-141
원문 보기