In the Monopolies Commission's 2015 report, we did indeed assume that the digital market had not yet solidified and was developing extremely dynamically. New players and products were constantly emerging. We were therefore of the opinion that this had to be allowed to take effect. After all, we did not know what the final outcome would be and considered the antitrust authorities' abuse supervision – extended to platform markets – to be sufficient to stop any competition offences.

That's right. Faster than expected, the market then concentrated on a few dominant players such as Alphabet including YouTube, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook/Meta including Instagram, and Twitter. The dynamic declined rapidly. We realized that anti-abuse supervision was not enough because it takes far too long to change anything in a timely manner, with lawsuits lasting six to eight years.

Looking back, it is of course easy: yes. But I want to clarify once again: It is necessary to allow a market to develop first. Back then, there were 10, 15 or more new small digital companies trying their hand at new businesses. And the – now large – corporations that had bought up some of them didn't yet know which ones would be successful. In a phase like this, you can't point the finger at a single company and brand it as anti-competitive.

Many companies, large and small, are also emerging again now in the field of artificial intelligence with ever new business ideas. And even now we have to ask ourselves: Where is competition law sufficient? Where do we already need to take the regulatory cudgel to the market? Knowing very well that this would slow down the dynamism of the markets. But the experiences of the first wave of digitalization are certainly still having an impact – and our range of instruments has been expanded.

The „cooperations“ are definitely a problem. You could also see them as a precursor to a merger. At the very least, influence is being exerted. But here, again, it is not yet clear what will succeed in business terms. And what will be the platform effects?

When it comes to AI, the data issue seems to me to be the crucial one: Whoever has more data will also be able to create better AI. This is where we need to start. The antitrust authorities must ensure that the data is freely available to all competitors. And in the case of special applications, companies must ensure that their data does not leak away to the big players.

In my opinion, the „simple“ solution that is often voiced, namely breaking up the company, is not an option. In the case of the rail network, we would never think about removing the market power of the railway company. There is an indivisible network, and it has to be regulated so that competitors can gain a foothold and become successful. There is then competition on the railways. Breaking up Facebook or Google would not help either. There would then be a northern and southern Facebook, for example, and at some point one would win out again. Data-driven network effects also have an impact on AI platforms. We must therefore prevent them – in the same way as search engines or sales portals – from benefiting from broad knowledge, but favouring their own products and services and putting competitors at a disadvantage.

During the first wave of digitization, we recognized that the previous abuse control was not sufficient. This is why the new Section 19a of competition law was established in Germany, which provides more powers for supervision. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) at European level has also created new instruments, such as the ban on self-preferential treatment.

Perhaps 19a will speed things up because the legal process has been shortened. The claimants now have to go straight to the Federal Court of Justice. We are still talking about years and not weeks. But the penalty, for example with the DMA, is quite high, which is why the vast majority of companies are more likely to comply. That alone will lead to changes in behavior.

This is exactly what the DMA is trying to achieve: Interconnectivity and data portability. This could take away the market dominance of individual groups. In the telephone sector, I can also choose between Telekom and – let's say – Vodafone; and yet the users can all reach each other. That would weaken the network effects. I would like to see a little more pressure from the market regulator here.

There are already requirements for interconnectivity and data portability for messenger services, for example. But the DMA has only recently come into force. There is still a lack of experience.

I think so. But we really must not limit the discussion to regulation, but must look at how we can create more dynamism in this country. And to do this, we need to address the still delayed broadband expansion and the insufficient start-up culture. Or the low level of digitalization in administration and the high level of bureaucracy. Regulation is always good in markets that have a certain inertia. If they are dynamic, as in the digital and AI market, we in Germany are always lagging behind at the moment.

Well, we have an asset that we can use to put pressure on these digital companies: our European single market. Entering this market is very attractive. And that's why we can persuade the digital companies to play by our rules. Europe's position here is much more powerful than that of Australia, for example, which is also fighting against the market power of Facebook & Co.

The threat is definitely there. We are seeing gigantic investments from the digital companies that can afford it. They have already built up a big lead. Not least because they have access to large global data sets that they have collected themselves over decades. They also have the necessary computing capacities. However, they still lack the necessary data knowledge for individual industry applications. Domestic companies need to build on this in order to develop their own AI systems. The more general AI applications such as ChatGPT cannot do this.

We don't make it easy for ourselves with 16 different data protection authorities. Actually, data protection already allows enough scope for freedom, but I would much prefer the authorities to work in a more solution-oriented and less prohibition-oriented way.

With the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Digital Service Act (DSA), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the AI Act, we already have proper regulations. These must first be allowed to take effect. From a German and European perspective, access to data is the decisive factor in creating a fair market. I'm thinking of government and health data. Competitors must have access to this data. Conversely, they must also be able to access the data that Google, for example, has collected with its web search.

That depends very much on how it is implemented. When it came to the General Data Protection Regulation, we in Europe were initially quite happy from a competitive perspective because we assumed that there would finally be uniform data protection rules. Fiddlesticks! Every country has implemented the GDPR differently – Germany has been particularly rigid. And because the authority in Ireland is smaller and decisions there are put on the back burner, it is still worthwhile for companies to be based there. Let's hope that this will now be different with the AI Act.

My concern is that the provisions represent a barrier to entry for smaller companies in particular. The AI Act must not stifle market dynamics – unlike in the financial sector, where fintechs have been slowed down by regulation.

It's not that easy legally. In terms of practicability, there is certainly a lot to be said for assigning responsibility to a single body. Especially as the European digital single market is still not complete. If you open an online branch in Germany, you are still far from being allowed to do so in France. Tax law is also different. We're not making any progress here. And that also distinguishes us – despite our size – from the American domestic market. That's why it's easier for companies there to grow to a size that raises competition issues here.