Is there a Brazilian experience with digital remedies? an empirical analysis of decisions by Cade

Barra lateral de artigos

PDF (Inglês) HTML (Inglês)
Publicado: 2025-06-25
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52896/rdc.v13i1.1933
Palavras-chave:
remedies, digital markets, mergers, investigations, enforcement

Conteúdo do artigo principal

Bruno Polonio Renzetti
Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa (INSPER)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8249-4451
Daniele Eduarda de Oliveira
Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV/SP)
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0415-8241

Resumo

Objective: The paper investigates how Cade has applied remedies in digital markets. The objective is to verify whether the Brazilian authority has developed a singular experience in imposing digital remedies or if it has been following trends from other jurisdictions, particularly the European Union and the United States. The research question is relevant given that Brazil, as an emerging economy, faces specific challenges in dealing with large digital platforms, while also playing a key role in the Latin American and Global South economy.


Method: Literature review and case study.


Conclusions: The authors conclude that the Brazilian authority has not experimented with specific remedies for digital markets, often applying measures that have been applied in non-digital investigations or mergers. There has not been a tailor-made remedies approach to digital markets in the practice of Cade so far. In this sense, the authors urge Cade to develop a comprehensive framework to deal with competitive problems specific to digital markets.

Detalhes do artigo

Edição

v. 13 n. 1 (2025): Revista de Defesa da Concorrência

Seção

III Rio International Workshop on Advances in Competition Policy Analysis
Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Os direitos autorais dos artigos publicados são do(s) autor(es), com direitos da Revista de Defesa da Concorrência (RDC) sobre a primeira publicação, impressa e/ou digital.

O(s) autor(es) somente poderá(ão) utilizar os mesmos resultados em outras publicações indicando claramente a Revista de Defesa da Concorrência como o meio da publicação original. Se não houver tal indicação, considerar-se-á situação de autoplágio.

A reprodução, total ou parcial, dos artigos aqui publicados fica sujeita à expressa menção da procedência de sua publicação neste periódico, citando-se o volume e o número dessa publicação, além do link DOI para referência cruzada. Para efeitos legais, deve ser consignada a fonte de publicação original.

Por se tratar de periódico de acesso aberto, permite-se o uso gratuito dos artigos em aplicações educacionais e científicas desde que citada a fonte, conforme a licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

 

Biografia do Autor

Bruno Polonio Renzetti, Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa (INSPER)

Doutor em Direito Comercial pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo. Master of Laws (LL.M.) pela Yale Law School. Professor da graduação e pós-graduação em Direito do Insper, em São Paulo, SP.

Daniele Eduarda de Oliveira, Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV/SP)

Mestranda em Direito e Desenvolvimento pela Escola de Direito da Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV/SP). Bacharel em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo.

Como Citar

Is there a Brazilian experience with digital remedies? an empirical analysis of decisions by Cade. Revista de Defesa da Concorrência, Brasília, v. 13, n. 1, p. p. 36–56, 2025. DOI: 10.52896/rdc.v13i1.1933. Disponível em: https://revista.cade.gov.br/index.php/revistadedefesadaconcorrencia/article/view/1933. Acesso em: 30 jun. 2025.

Referências

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEFENSE (Cade). BRICS in the Digital Economy: Competition Policy in Practice: 2nd Report by the Competition Authorities Working Group on Digital Economy. Brasília: Cade, 2024a. Available at: https://x.gd/dVkt2n. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEFENSE (Cade). CADE’s contribution to the Ministry of Finance’s Public consultation for regulation of digital platforms. Brasília: Cade, 2024b. Available at: https://x.gd/SWTkX. Accessed on: 6 March 2025.

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEFENSE (Cade). Mercados de Plataformas Digitais: Cadernos do Cade. Brasília: Cade, 2023. Available at: https://x.gd/NGkhq. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

AUTORITÉ DE LA CONCURRENCE. Les engagements comportementaux: Behavioural Remedies. Paris: La Documentation Française, 2020. (Les essentiels).

BLUME, Igor Marcelo; BRUCH, Kelly. O Paradoxo do Google: a geração de ganhos de eficiência e as condutas anticompetitivas. Revista de Defesa da Concorrência, Brasília, i. 11, n. 2, 2023. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.52896/rdc.v11i2.1062. Available at: https://x.gd/daSfV. Accessed on: 26 February 2025.

BOSTOEN, Friso; VAN WAMEL, David. Antitrust remedies: From caution to creativity. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, [s. l.], v. 14, i. 8, p. 540-552, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/ lpad051. Available at: https://x.gd/TpSJ3. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

BOSTOEN, Friso; VAN WAMEL, David. The Digital Markets Act: A Partial Solution to Antitrust’s Remedy Problem. Common Market Law Review, [s. l.], v. 61, i. 6, 2024. Available at: https://x.gd/Bxb0l. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

BRADFORD, Anu. The Brussels Effect. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.

BRASIL. Ministério da Fazenda. Plataformas Digitais: Aspectos econômicos e concorrenciais e recomendações para aprimoramentos regulatórios no Brasil. Brasília: Ministério da Fazenda, 2024. Available at: https://x.gd/jCbPc. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

COMPETITION MARKET AUTHORITY (CMA). Microsoft / Activision Blizzard merger inquiry. London: CMA, 2023. Available at: https://x.gd/TKfgl. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Fines. European Commission, Brussels, 2025. Available at: https://x.gd/2Rfaf. Accessed on: 25 Feb. 2025.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Case M.9660 – GOOGLE/FITBIT. Brussels, 2020. Available at: https://x.gd/ twWw5. Accessed on: 25 Feb. 2025.

GAL, Michal S.; PETIT, Nicolas. Radical restorative remedies for digital markets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Berkeley, v. 36, i. 2, p. 617-674, 2021. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27210392. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

GREENWOOD, Natalie; ROBERT, Gavin. Who’s Afraid of the UK Competition & Markets Authority? Antitrust Magazine, Chicago, v. 38, i. 3, 2024. Available at: https://x.gd/4t6M2. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

HALPERIN, Michal. Remedies (antitrust). Global Dictionary of Competition Law. Paris: Concurrences, 2025. Available at: https://x.gd/aSgHB. Accessed on: 24 Feb. 2025.

HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Antitrust Interoperability Remedies. Columbia Law Review, New York, v. 123, 2023. Available at: https://x.gd/9G2Zk. Accessed on: 23 Feb. 2025.

LANCIERI, Filippo; PEREIRA NETO, Caio Mario S. Designing remedies for digital markets: the interplay between antitrust and regulation. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, [s. l.], v. 18, i. 3, p. 613-669, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhab022. Available at: https://x.gd/e2YXi. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

LANCIERI, Filippo; SAKOWSKI, Patricia Morita. Competition in Digital Markets: A Review of Expert Reports. Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance, Stanford, v. 26, p. 65, 2021. Available at: https://x. gd/u3WwJ. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

MCCABE, David. Justice Dept. Double Down on Request to Break Up Google. New York Times, New York, Mar. 7, 2025. Available at: https://x.gd/SxqXR. Accessed on: 7 March 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). Ex ante regulation and competition in digital markets. OECD Publishing: Paris, 2021. Available at: https://x.gd/Gku5h. Accessed on: 25 Feb. 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OCDE). Interim Measures in Antitrust Investigations. 2022a. OECD Roundtables on Competition Policy Papers, No. 283, OECD Publishing: Paris, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5a3242e9-en. Available at: https://x.gd/SCDJD. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OCDE). OECD Handbook on Competition Policy in the Digital Age. OECD Publishing: Paris, 2022b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/ c8c1841b-en. Available at: https://x.gd/SH0il. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). OECD Peer Reviews of Competition Law and Policy: Brazil, 2019. Competition Law and Policy Reviews. OECD Publishing: Paris, 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/8657b785-en. Accessed on: 25 Feb. 2025.

PETERS, Jay. Apple has 90 days to allow app sideloading in Brazil. The Verge, New York, Mar. 6, 2025. Available at: https://x.gd/K5VXq. Accessed on: 25 Mar. 2025.

SANTOS, Humberto Cunha dos. A concorrência dinâmica das plataformas digitais: o respeito à inovação sem desprestigiar a preservação da competição na economia digital – reflexões a partir do caso “Google Shopping”. Revista do IBRAC, São Paulo, i. 1, p. 296–317, 2020. Available at: https://x.gd/ Utad5. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCTAD). Enforcing Competition Law in Digital Markets and Ecosystems: Policy Challenges and Options. Geneva: Unctad, 2024. Available at: https://x.gd/i6V3S. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA). Federal Trade Commission. File Number 111-0163. Washington: Federal Trade Commission, 2013. Available at: https://bit.ly/3Rh8T8a. Accessed on: 4 Apr. 2022.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA). Department of Justice. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedy Framework. Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM, Document 1052, Oct. 8, 2024. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/atr/ media/1373101/dl. Accessed on: 25 Feb. 2025.

WORLD BANK. Antitrust and Digital Platforms: An Analysis of Global Patterns and Approaches by Competition Authorities. Washington, D. C.: World Bank Group, 2021. (Levelling Up). Available at: https://x.gd/0RsRd. Accessed on: 26 Feb. 2025.