����ԭ��

Without sufficient laws in place, Australian consumers and businesses continue to encounter a significant number of harmful practices across a range of digital platform services, the ����ԭ��’s tenth and final report of the ����ԭ��’s Digital Platform Services Inquiry has found.

“Digital platform services are critically important to Australian consumers and businesses and are major drivers of productivity growth in our economy,” ����ԭ�� Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“While these services have brought many benefits, they have also created harms that our current competition and consumer laws cannot adequately address. This is why we continue to recommend that targeted regulation of digital platform services is needed to increase competition and innovation, and protect consumers in digital markets.”

The report, which concludes the ����ԭ��’s five year inquiry, has reiterated support for measures including an economy wide unfair trading practices prohibition, an external dispute resolution body for digital platform services, and a new digital competition regime.

Continued risk of widespread harms to Australian consumers and small businesses

The ����ԭ��’s final report found that there continues to be significant risk of consumer and competition harms on digital platforms.

Consumers continue to face unfair trading practices in digital markets including manipulative design practices, such as user interfaces that direct consumers to more expensive subscriptions or purchase options.

“72 per cent of Australian consumers surveyed by the ����ԭ�� reported that they had encountered potentially unfair practices when shopping online, such as accidental subscriptions or hidden fees. An unfair trading practices prohibition is required to protect consumers from these kinds of tactics, both online and offline,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Our consumer survey also found 82 per cent of respondents agree that there should be a specialised independent external dispute resolution body for users of digital platform services to escalate complaints which cannot be resolved with platforms directly.”

“An external dispute resolution body would also help Australian small businesses who rely on digital platforms to reach their customers – for example, when a fake review is made about their business on a search engine or marketplace, or when they have an account deactivated and lose their means of accessing their customers on social media,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

A new digital competition regime will bring benefits to Australians

Throughout the course of this five-year Inquiry, the ����ԭ�� has also observed conduct by the most powerful digital platforms that is distorting the competitive process. This conduct includes denying interoperability, self-preferencing and tying, exclusivity agreements, impeding switching, and withholding access to important hardware, software, and data inputs.

“A lack of competition in digital markets can lead to higher prices, less choice, lower quality or even greater harvesting of personal data, ultimately impacting everyday users,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“There is broad international recognition that there is anti-competitive conduct in digital markets that needs to be addressed. Several jurisdictions have already introduced regulation to improve competition in digital markets, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.”

“It is timely to progress a new digital competition regime in Australia which will increase contestability, benefit both local and foreign companies that rely on access to these platforms to conduct business in Australia, and support a growing economy,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Emerging services and technology need continued scrutiny

The final report has also outlined how rapidly evolving digital markets and emerging technologies, like cloud computing and generative AI, may exacerbate existing risks to competition and consumers in Australia or give rise to new ones.

For example, cloud computing is continuing to grow both globally and in Australia, providing significant benefits for businesses and consumers. However, the ����ԭ��’s report identified a range of potential competition risks in this sector.

“We found that the major providers of cloud computing in Australia – Amazon, Microsoft and Google – are vast, incumbent digital platforms that are vertically integrated across the cloud technology stack. Vertically-integrated cloud providers may be incentivised to engage in conduct that could harm their competitors – for example, anti-competitively bundling their own services across different layers of the cloud stack,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The report also found that generative AI developers and deployers generally require access to significant cloud computing power to train and deploy their products. However, cloud providers may be incentivised to anti-competitively bundle, tie or self-preference their own generative AI products above those of competitors.

“Harms to competition in the generative AI sector could hamper innovation, result in lower quality products and services, and force Australian businesses and consumers to pay more than they otherwise would to utilise this technology,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“To protect against these kinds of risks, it is critical that the proposed digital competition regime enable the ����ԭ�� to continue monitoring changes to services it has previously examined, as well as new technologies that emerge over time.”

Background

The ����ԭ��’s Digital Platforms Branch conducted a five-year inquiry into markets for the supply of digital platform services in Australia and their impacts on competition and consumers, following a direction from the Treasurer in 2020.

The inquiry reported to the Government every six months and examined different forms of digital platform services, including: online private messaging services, app marketplaces, search defaults and choice screens, general online retail marketplaces, regulatory reform, social media services, expanding ecosystems of digital platforms, data products and services supplied by data firms, and revisiting general search services. This ����ԭ��’s tenth report concludes the inquiry.

Previous reports are published at Digital platform services inquiry 2020-25.

In the fifth DPSI interim report on regulatory reform, the ����ԭ�� made a range of recommendations to bolster competition in the digital economy, level the playing field between big tech companies and Australian businesses, and reduce prices for consumers. The recommendations include new service-specific mandatory codes of conduct for particular ‘designated digital platforms,’ based on principles set out in legislation.

In December 2023, the Government accepted the ����ԭ��’s findings that existing competition provisions by themselves are not sufficient to address current or potential future competition harms and supported-in-principle the development of a new digital competition regime. In December 2024, the Government began consultation on the implementation of a new digital competition regime in Australia.

Further information, including key findings are available on the ����ԭ�� website.

Notes to editors

‘Cloud computing’ refers to the provision of global, on-demand network access to computing resources such as networks, servers, storage, applications and services. Cloud computing can be contrasted with traditional on-premises computing, where an organisation installs and maintains its own IT infrastructure for private use.

‘Generative AI’ refers to a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that can create content such as text, images, audio, video or data, in response to prompts entered by a user. Generative AI adopts a machine learning approach for turning inputs and outputs into new outputs by analysing extremely large datasets.