Tacit Collusion on Steroids: The Potential Risks for Competition Resulting from the Use of Algorithm Technology by Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper provides a study that investigates the potential risks for competition 2
resulting from the use of algorithm technology by companies
The authors should address the following points to improve the paper
1. The abstract
I think the abstract discussed mainly the motivation of the paper but
does not provide their contribution. At least in the abstract, the authors
should add one or two sentences that describe their work such as "we
have provided a deep discussion of the relevant articles ..."
The outcome of the paper is not well discussed and presented
Section 4 which presents the different outcomes of the research is not well presented.
For instance from line 382 "For some authors [52] [53], the introduction and use by companies of black box algorithms authorized to make decisions leading to collusive results should engage the responsibility of these companies in the same way...."
I think the authors should provide a table that can represent the different
views of the authors, their pros and cons along with their suggestions
In section 4 several opinions of different authors are discussed ranging
from around reference 51 to 59. But I think their views should be organized in a table
(I think it should easy than a diagram or flow chart)
Author Response
Dear sirs,
We thank you for your very constructive remarks!
- The abstract
Following your observation according to which the abstract lacks information regarding the authors’ contribution to the debate as to whether the use by firms of algorithms might foster collusion, we have reformulated the last part of the abstract as follows:
“Against this backdrop, we have provided a deep discussion as to whether the concept of “agreement for antitrust purposes” as defined in the US and EU competition laws needs revisiting and found out that the more the type of use of algorithms made by firms is likely to enable direct or indirect communication between competitors, the more chances those companies may be considered liable under section 1 of the US Sherman Act and article 101 TFEU”.
If you'd like to make some improvements to this reformulation of the end of the abstract, you're welcome.
- Section 4
We greatly appreciate your criticism regarding the fact the different outcomes of the research are not well presented and have added accordingly a table presenting the different scenarios of use of algorithms (parallel algorithms, signaling algorithms, hub and spoke, self-learning algorithms) for which firms, their employees and independent third party program developers may be considered liable under section 1 of the US Sherman Act and article 101 TFEU.
- Adequate references
All the references to articles in scientific journals have been reformulated according to Sustainability’s guidelines i.e
Author 1, A.B., Author 2, C.D. Title of the article quoted. Journal Title (including abbreviation of the journal’s name written in italic), year, volume number, page number.
Also all the internet links mentioned in references have been double-checked. They are all working and up-dated.
That’s all for now.
If you have any other suggestion, please do no hesitate to let us know.
We wish you all the best for 2021!
Christophe Samuel Hutchinson
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper discusses a relevant and important topic (price war in markets), and presents a very interesting conceptual model.
The literature review of this paper is stronger and presents a great number of references.
The procedure is not really clear and can be improved. Anyway, The research question helps to better understand the research.
Results and conclusions are clear.
Author Response
Dear sirs,
Thank you for your appreciation of our paper.
In the new version of our manuscript which you will find attached we have tried to improve the "procedure" of our research through the following corrections/additions:
- The abstract
In order to stress the authors’ contribution to the debate as to whether the use by firms of algorithms might foster collusion, we have reformulated the last part of the abstract as follows:
“Against this backdrop, we have provided a deep discussion as to whether the concept of “agreement for antitrust purposes” as defined in the US and EU competition laws needs revisiting and found out that the more the type of use of algorithms made by firms is likely to enable direct or indirect communication between competitors, the more chances those companies have to be considered liable under section 1 of the US Sherman Act and article 101 TFEU”.
- Section 4
In order to improve the presentation of the different outcomes of our research, we have added a table presenting the different scenarios of use of algorithms (parallel algorithms, signaling algorithms, hub and spoke, self-learning algorithms) for which firms, their employees and independent third party program developers may be considered liable under section 1 of the US Sherman Act and article 101 TFEU.
- Adequate references
All the references to articles in scientific journals have reformulated according to Sustainability’s guidelines i.e
Author 1, A.B., Author 2, C.D. Title of the article quoted. Journal Title (including abbreviation of the journal’s name written in italic), year, volume number, page number.
Also all the internet links mentioned in references have been double-checked. When one’s clicks on it, they are all working and up-dated.
That’s all for now.
If you have any other suggestion, you’re welcome!
We wish you all the best for 2021!
Christophe Samuel Hutchinson
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all the comments and suggestions accordingly. Minor spell check for English is required
Author Response
Dears sirs,
I enclose the latest version of our manuscript including the minor spell check required.
Best regards,
Christophe S. Hutchinson
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
