Abstract:Collusion among enterprises can restrict market competition, and anti-monopoly laws in various countries all regulate collusion. Collusion is divided into explicit collusion and tacit collusion: The former stresses mental connection or information exchange among operators, which can be proved by direct evidence; the latter refers to actual coordinated actions among operators without explicit and perceivable agreements and connections, which mostly occurs in oligopoly markets. The monopoly agreement system once constituted the main legal basis for tacit collusion, but it is difficult to prove the mental connection in tacit collusion that is the basis of identifying monopoly agreement. Based on this, the European Union introduced the collective dominance system. This approach solves the problem of proof of mental connection under the monopoly agreement system. However, there are controversies over why several operators are identified as a whole to prove the existence of collective dominance, and what standards should be satisfied to identify the existence of such collective dominance.The collective dominance system has its unique value in the digital era. On the one hand, the digital market features high concentration, and the higher the market concentration, the more likely operators are to coordinate their actions by tacit collusion. On the other hand, even if the oligopoly market has not yet emerged, the combination of algorithms and big data also makes the market more transparent. Accompanied by the continuous development of predictable and autonomous algorithms, and the gradual improvement of virtual supervision and punishment mechanisms, it is easier for operators in the digital market to conduct consistent acts. When it is difficult to prove monopoly agreements, the collective dominance system matters in solving the tacit collusion among enterprises in the digital era.However, the application of the collective dominance system is facing the confusion of identification standards in China: The Anti-Monopoly Law fails to establish special standards for the identification of collective dominance, and in practice, the anti-monopoly enforcement agencies also presume and identify collective dominance in a too simple manner. The concept of collective dominance originates from the EU that regards “economic links” and “market structure” as the main standards for identifying collective dominance through case law. But in different cases, identification standards are different, and the opinions of the European Commission and the courts are not consistent. The standards for identifying collective dominance can be divided into two classes: the identification of “collective” and the identification of “dominance”. Then the two classes can be divided into four elements: There is a specific market environment or economic links that are conducive to the conduct of consistent acts by operators; operators form a whole by conducting consistent acts so that they can be regarded as a collective entity and regulated under the single dominance system; operators have integrated anti-competitive consciousness to conduct consistent acts; and the whole can behave independently of competitors, customers and consumers.

Non-efficient and Efficient Market Forces——A Basic Framework for Object of Anti-monopoly

Market Order of Monopoly and Anti-monopoly

The Nature of the Market:From an Invisible Hand to a Tangible Network

Anti-monopoly Enforcement with Budget Maximization

Antitrust: Competition Policy for Which Opposing or Intended to Regulate Monopolies

The Study on Issues Related to Anti-monopoly Regulation on Large-scale Retail Enterprises Abusing the Dominant Position:Based on the View of Two-sided Markets Theory

The Anti-monopoly by Regulating Enterprises Merger in the View of Multidimensional Economic Efficiencies: A Case Study of the Merger Between Coca-cola and HuiYuan

Values of Anti-monopoly Law

The Essential Facilities Doctrine and the Regulation of the Abuse of Market Dominant Position

The Rule of Law and Responsible Government in the Transformation towards Modern Market Economy

Probe into Promoting the Competition Level in Natural Monopoly Industries

Industries' market Forces Theory and the Estimated Method

Monopoly Characteristics and Policy Analysis of China's Online Retail Market

Administrative Monopoly and the Anti-Monopoly Law: an examination of the debate in China

Research on anti-monopoly problem in platform economy field

An Experimental Research on Information Efficiency of Securities Markets

The Model of "Structure—Function" on the Aim of Anti-monopoly Law——Review of the First Article of China's Antimonopoly Law

The Anti-monopoly Principles of Resale Price Maintenance under Platform Economy

Market Structure and Market Behavior Analysis of Anti-Monopoly of Platform Economy

Identification Standards for Collective Dominance in the Digital Era

Regulation of Platform Economy Under the Domination of Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement With Sector Regulation Coordination: Theoretical Analysis and the Model Innovation in China