To whom it may concern, Please find attached the International Center for Law & Economics comments on the Commissions consultation concerning the revision of Regulation 1/2003. In brief, our comments counsel preserving strong evidentiary and proportionality safeguards for interim measures and commitments; streamlining complainant procedures by removing the obligation to issue formal rejection decisions; and strengthening coordination (and, where appropriate, harmonization) to mitigate duplicative enforcement and internal-market fragmentation. Sincerely. Dirk Auer
To whom this may concern, I am writing to submit the following paper on behalf of Ginger Zhe Jin, Jorge Klinnert, Mario Leccese and Liad Wagman, several of whom are academic affiliates of the International Center for Law & Economics. We believe the paper is highly relevant to your call for evidence. The authors provide what the DMA review is asking for: rigorous, academic evidence on whether the DMA is fostering contestable and fair markets and how it affects business usersespecially SMEsand whether obligations/scope should be adjusted. Using LinkedIn and PitchBook to follow 3,610 senior leaders across 2,151 VC-backed acquisitions (20002025), the paper compares gatekeeper-linked sectors and acquirers with appropriate non-gatekeeper benchmarks and finds broadly similar patterns in repeat acquisitions, post-deal mobility, and founder transitionsevidence that challenges key DMA assumptions and offers concrete outcome metrics (mobility rates, founder shares, repeat-acquisition probabilities) the Commission can use in assessing Article 14 monitoring and any recalibration of obligations. Please let us know if you require any further information. Kind regards, Dirk Auer