Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Supplement 4, pp 8387–8400 | Cite as

Research on consumers’ protection in advantageous operation of big data brokers

  • Yingzhi Nie
  • Xueping HanEmail author


In the era of big data, the scale and market power of internet brokers companies have gotten the significant improvement. After accepting the information display, comparative evaluation and consumption recommendation in shopping, dining, tourism and other fields provided by big data brokers, consumers fully felt the qualitative leap in the efficiency of consumption behavior under the digital economy. But at the same time, when faced with the dominance of big data brokers, the traditional weak consumers do not really improve the ability of informed and rational decision-making. On the contrary, there is the possibility that big data brokers mislead the consumers and exploit the interests of consumers, and the overall market competition order also have the great risk of being destroyed by the anti-competitive behaviors of big data brokers. Regulators and legislators should begin to develop consumer protection strategies against the strong growth for big data brokers. That is, to establish a balance mechanism of consumer personal information control and data disclosure; to full play the regulatory role of competition policy; to build a legal system of big data regulation. These strategies together achieve the strict supervision to big data brokers, and to complete the legal protection of consumer welfare.


Big data brokers Consumer protection Competition policy Legal system 


  1. 1.
    Willis, L.E.: Decisionmaking and the limits of disclosure: the problem of predatory lending: price. Md. L. Rev. 65, 707 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Gill, O., Stone, R.: Pricing misperceptions: explaining pricing structure in the cell phone service market. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 9, 73–79 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vazire, N.: Smoke and mirrors: predatory lending and the subprime mortgage loan securitization pyramid scheme. Pace L. Rev. 30, 41 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duhigg, C.: How Companies Learn Your Secrets, N.Y. Times (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biesdorf, S.: Court D, Willmott P (2013) Big data: what’s your plan? McKinsey Q. 2, 63 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ambrose, B.W., Conklin, J.N.: Mortgage brokers, origination fees, price transparency and competition. Real Estate Econ. 42, 363–364 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds Random House, pp. 15–17. Anchor, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silver-Greenberg, J., Pilon, M.: The great customer courtship-banks are rolling out new incentives to win your business. Wall St. J. 12, B7 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    “The Wolf character” of “Dianping” is still to be developed, while investing “”with “ Tencent”. (2014). Accessed 8 May 2014
  10. 10.
    The platform effect shows the diversification trend of take-out O2O entry. (2016). Accessed 04 Nov 2016
  11. 11.
    Huang, D., Rudegeair, P.: Bank of America cut off finance sites from its data, Wall St. J., 10 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    With a market value of more than $470 billion, US e-commerce giant Amazon is unlikely to fight China again. (2017). Accessed 17 Nov 2017
  13. 13.
    Tencent has a market value of more than $30 billion in Asian shares, and JD continued its slide yesterday. (2017). Accessed 17 Nov 2017
  14. 14.
    Amazon, which is good at loss-making, has a market value of nearly $1 trillion. Sina news (2016). Accessed 18 Sep 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    What else can mobile e-commerce do? (2016). Accessed 12 Jun 2016
  16. 16.
    JD, Alibaba, which have a slightly lower market share. (2017). Accessed 13 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Why did investors choose Baidu and Ele, but gave up Meituan? (2015)
  18. 18.
    Do Ele want to merge with the Meituan takeout? New culture (2016). Accessed 30 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tencent has bought into JD’s details: Tencent has stepped up its payment platform, and JD has entered the C2C market. (2016). Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  20. 20.
    Qiannan, W.: The business of steady earnings—Tencent has a 20% stake in Dianping. (2016). Accessed 19 Feb 2016
  21. 21.
    Baidu wholly buys Nuomi. The Beijing (2014). Accessed 25 Jan 2014
  22. 22.
    Alibaba builds Ant financial services. (2014). Accessed 17 Oct 2014
  23. 23.
    Alibaba has a 10 percent stake in Didi, and will join in Ant financial with another $400 million. (2016). Accessed 26 May 2016
  24. 24.
    Li, zhiguo.: Alibaba and Ant financial invested $1.25 billion to Ele. (2016). Accessed 05 May 2016
  25. 25.
    Tencent increased its holdings and raised its registered capital to 4.2 billion yuan. (2016). Accessed 09 Sep 2016
  26. 26.
    How do Microbanks export financial technology based on Tencent’s Cloud? (2014). Accessed 14 Dec 2014
  27. 27.
    Chengwei, C.: The significance of competition policy in the context of "Internet”. Mod. Econ. Res. 4, 20 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yam, P.: How to kick-start innovation with free data. (2013). Accessed 3 March 2013
  29. 29.
    Luca, M., Zervas, G.: Fake it till you make it: reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud. (2015). Accessed 20 July 2015
  30. 30.
    Gabaix, X., Laibson, D.: Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Q. J. Econ. 121, 505–540 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bar-Gill, O., Warren, E.: Making credit safer 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1, 64 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brian, X.: Chen, the high price of delivery app convenience tech fix. N.Y. Times. 4, B9 (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goldman, Eric: Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism, 8 YALE. J. L. Tech. 188, 189 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shapiro, M.: The sum of all fares: how online booking sites influence you, wash. Post. E1 (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kingsley, B., Quincy, L.: Architecture: design decisions that affect consumers’ health plan choices, Consumers Union. (2012). Accessed 9 July 2012
  36. 36.
    Johnson, E.J., et al.: Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark. Lett. 23, 488 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Armstrong, M., Zhou, J.: Paying for prominence. Econ. J. 121, 368 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    , A. et al.: Do laws influence the cost of real estate brokerage services? a state fixed effects approach, Real Estate Econ. (2016)
  39. 39.
    Selling at Fees and pricing, Amazon.
  40. 40.
    Fairless, Tom: The EU eyes a tech ’super-regulator’. Wall St. J. 24, B1 (2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Working party document WP 105, Working document on data protection issues related to RFID technology, (2005). Accessed 19 Jan 2005
  42. 42.
    Evrard, S.J.: Essential facilities in the European Union: Bornner and beyond. Columbia J. Eur. Law. 10, 491 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: the interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the digital economy. (2014). Accessed 31 Mar 2014
  44. 44.
    Hemphill, C.S., Wu, T.: Parallel exclusion. Yale LJ. 122, 1182 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Picker, R. C.: ‘Competition and privacy in Web 2.0 and the Cloud’, 414, Chicago John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, 13–14 June 2008Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hoofnagle, C.J., Whittington, J.: ‘Free: accounting for the costs of the internet’s most popular price’, 61 UCLA L. Rev. :606 (2014)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Amazon to alter pricing policy for traders, BBC. (2013). Accessed 29 Aug 2013
  48. 48.
    News Story, CMA publishes final motor insurance order. (2015). Accessed 18 March 2015
  49. 49.
    Lane, B.: CFPB launches investigation into bankrate mortgage rate tracker, Housingwire. (2015). Accessed 19 June 2015
  50. 50.
    Snyder, B.: Yelp says FTC dropped inquiry into its reviews, Fortune. (2015). Accessed 9 Jan 2015
  51. 51.
    Shapiro M.: The sum of all fares: how online booking sites influence you, wash. Post. E1 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Sales, Dependable., Truecar, Serv. v. : Inc., No. 15-cv-1742 (PKC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1424, at *30–31 (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lawrence Lessig, Code. (2006):1.
  55. 55.
    Balkin, J.M., Zittrain, J.: A grand bargain to make tech companies trustworthy, New Republic, (2016). Accessed 3 Oct 2016
  56. 56.
    Initial regulatory impact analysis for proposed consumer rulemaking regarding transparency of airline ancillary fees and other consumer protection issues, Dep’t of Transportation, (2014). Accessed 16 April 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawNortheast Agricultural UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations