Regulatory Impact Assessment of the EU Digital Market Surveillance and Chinese Response Plan

Abstract： As a data protection legislation with the dual objectives of market regulation and government supervision， the EU General Data Protection Regulation （GDPR） is designed to promote the cultivation of a market for data elements and to regulate the data processing subjects' behaviour. The civil legal norms to participate in the data market regulation are introduced， and a right-protected mode with the obligation norms of data controllers as the core is started by GDPR. However， from the perspective of GDPR's global enforcement effectiveness， as an export-orientated global standard and protection framework， the power regulation model of the EU's single digital market is facing the innovative incentives of data market expansion and the tension of human rights protection. A more modest and moderate data governance regulation model has been opened by a new round of the EU digital market regulation. The legal scenarios transition and digital platforms regulation more fit the regulatory demand and development goals of global digital economy development. The EU's determination to enhance the global digital market share and competitiveness is demonstrated. For China， the impact and security risks of the new round should be evaluated carefully， drawing on the experience of the technical standpoint and institutional framework and regulatory rules of the EU digital market regulation， providing the regulatory models and Chinese solutions to respond to the EU digital market regulation， and enhancing Chinese institutional discourse and rule-making leadership in the global digital economy.

Keywords： EU digital market regulation; GDPR; regulation mode; legal response

CLC： D 923" " " " DC： A" " " " " " " Article ID： 2096⁃9783（2024）06⁃0127⁃11

The new round of the EU digital market regulation aims to break the institutional game of encouraging innovation and protecting human rights. Exploring the legal landscape changes， regulatory concepts， legal and policy improvement plans， algorithmic governance， and legal rules in the EU's digital market regulation as a systematic integrated solution on the path of adjusting personal privacy and digital well-being[1]. The EU is committed to innovating the adjustment of digital economy rules and reshaping governance models， providing a development model that can be referenced for the reconstruction of digital rights systems worldwide. In the face of the new wave of outward rules and standards in the EU's digital market regulation， China should conduct impact assessments and forward-looking predictions on the regulation's legal scene changes and， on this basis， carry out the localised rule adjustment and law response rules with an open and balanced mindset.

1 Regulatory Conflicts and Institutional Disenchantment of the EU Digital Market Regulation with the GDPR Framework

With the framework of GDPR， on the one hand， the EU digital market regulation is faced with the functionalism reflection to encourage innovation and protect human rights. The EU's single digital market strategy goal is hovering on the edge of the quagmire to boost the digital economy and digital trade barriers and is facing an awkward situation of strict regulation and regulatory power. On the other hand， the EU digital market regulation normative approach also faces governance dilemmas of government regulation and self-regulation; the dynamic balance and incentive compatibility with the guidance of multiple goals such as fairness， safety， efficiency， and freedom also require the standardised goal matching and consequence verification[2].

Therefore， with the framework of GDPR， conducting an impact assessment and fair competition review of the regulatory framework for the EU digital market can help clarify the relationship between government regulation and self-regulation and re-examine the regulatory conflicts and practical biases of the EU digital market regulation[3].

1.1 Regulation Logic of the EU Data Governance with the GDPR Framework

As a unified regulation for data protection in the EU， the core purpose of GDPR is to establish data compliance rules that safeguard the rights and interests of individual data subjects and achieve the adjustment of security and liquidity on the basis of balancing the protection of data subject rights and the orderly development of the digital economy effectively.

The era of technology companies using personal data for profit has ended， and the specific rules and legal frameworks for the privacy protection of EU citizens and corporate data compliance have been provided by GDPR.

From the perspective of enterprise data compliance， GDPR formulates unified basic terms such as legal subjects and legal actions through refined legislative techniques， introduces a legislative regulation model for data controllers， clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of data controllers from the perspective of pre-supervision， and forms general standards and technical measures for the protection of personal data rights. By introducing the right to be forgotten， data portability rights， data protection impact assessment mechanisms， and algorithmic regulatory systems， the responsibilities and obligations of data controllers with the guidance of meta-regulation conception are listed and standardised.

By introducing a mechanism for assessing the data compliance impact， the empowerment between technical governance and legal governance can be achieved effectively， the prior supervision of data security and the compliance goals of data controllers can be achieved， and the legal implementation effect of personal data can be improved effectively[4].

1.2 Observation on the Effectiveness of GDPR Extraterritorial Effects

Looking at the regulatory content of GDPR on extraterritorial effects， it goes beyond traditional jurisdictional models and combines significant features such as the EU's single digital market strategy and cross-border data flow values and regulatory models. The phenomenon of extraterritorial application of data legislation and extraterritorial jurisdiction not only helps accelerate the construction of a global regulatory system but also faces value conflicts， normative conflicts， and regulatory challenges between different jurisdictions[5].

Although there are only a few cases of the EU exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction， it is not difficult to find that the protection of personal data rights in the EU member states faces value conflicts and jurisdictional application difficulties in different jurisdictions through legal doctrinal scrutiny and reflective type analysis of typical cases （Table 1）.

The EU and its member states also face judicial difficulties in exercising their extraterritorial jurisdiction in Article 3 of the GDPR.

Taking the \"standard of business premises\" as an example， ensuring the enforcement scope of the right to be forgotten will trigger value conflicts and normative conflicts between different jurisdictions. In terms of \"target-orientated standards\"， the representative system also faces application difficulties at the judicial level， and the lack of cooperation in antitrust law enforcement has also led to a lack of protection of personal data rights within the EU[6].

The above typical cases show that the extraterritorial effect of GDPR has emerged. The EU has introduced extraterritorial jurisdiction in the GDPR legislation process， expanded the scope of territorial jurisdiction， and defined the regulatory logic of extraterritorial jurisdiction from the legal dogma level through \"business site standards\"， \"technical scenarios of data processing behaviour\"， \"target oriented standards\"， \"definition of data processing behaviour\"， \"representative system\"， etc. On the basis of adhering to the position of unilateralism， strive to achieve an effective balance between business value and personal information protection[7].

1.3 The Practice Deviation of the EU Digital Market Regulation with the Perspective of GDPR Framework

The EU's legislative model for data controllers and the regulatory system for personal data protection with the GDPR framework have already had an outward impact and have become a significant reference standard and a legislative precedent for many countries to carry out similar legislation. The EU's personal data protection rules system imposes higher industry standards and data protection obligations on data controllers. However， from the perspective of the extraterritorial effect and implementation effect of EU data protection rules， the EU's data protected mode attempts to carry out legal transplantation and legal development campaigns to enhance the global influence of the EU personal data protection rules and further promote the development of the EU digital economy. The lack of global internet giants is a true reflection of the EU's digital economy lagging behind China and the US. The COVID-19 here exposed the urgency of the EU's need to speed up digitization. Until the end of March 2020， the EU's countries began to use digital means to prevent and control the epidemic， and the public generally felt the network congestion. Against this background， the EU spent a lot of money to implement a series of heavy transformation plans， and the EU's digital market regulation was about to emerge[8].

2 SWOT-PEST Matrix and Regulatory Impact Assessment of the EU Digital Market Regulation

With the introduction of the EU's Digital Market Act and Digital Services Act， the EU has fully launched a responsibility regulation model for digital market regulation， and the EU's single digital market strategy for digital market regulation is further consolidated. A unified digital legislation strategy can not only break the technological monopoly of internet giants and promote digital innovation and economic development in the EU but also reshape the EU's legislative regulatory tools and regulatory compliance mechanisms. Therefore， by continuing the cooperative governance mechanism of the EU's single digital market regulatory model and introducing the SWOT-PEST analysis matrix from a holistic governance perspective， the rights attributes， regulatory logic， technical scenarios， and legal adjustments of the EU digital market regulation can be explored. Based on this， the regulatory impact assessment and China's implementation plan of EU digital market regulation in the new era can be explored[9].

2.1 SWOT-PEST Matrix Analysis of EU Digital Market Regulation

The SWOT analysis method is a qualitative analysis method conducted from the perspective of systems engineering. It effectively integrates internal micro-layout and external influencing factors and formulates the most appropriate implementation plan and development pattern based on comprehensive consideration of advantages， disadvantages， opportunities， and risks.

S and W represent internal conditions， while O and T represent external factors. The PEST rule is an analytical model and effective identification of the external macro-environment in which the system is located. SWOT focusses on the diagnosis and analysis of institutional micro-mechanisms from the perspective of systems engineering， while PEST focusses on the complete deconstruction of the external macro-environment of the system. This study comprehensively utilises the embedded SWOT-PEST matrix model to comprehensively analyse various environmental influencing factors and formation mechanisms inside and outside the system. By utilising coupling thinking， corresponding prescriptions can be given for diagnostic problems， achieving a dialectical unity of process and outcome in this sense[10].

Based on the regulatory dynamics and literature interpretation of the EU digital market regulation， the SWOT PEST analysis matrix is shown in Table 1." Based on the analysis results of the SWOT-PEST matrix， a realistic strategic development plan of \"insight into advantages， seize opportunities， eliminate weaknesses， and face challenges directly; reflect on the past， focus on the present， and focus on the future\" is carried out. By accurately matching and planning multiple elements， the strategic combination matrix for the regulatory development of the EU's digital market can be analysed[11].

Table 2" "SWOT-PEST Strategy Combination Matrix for the EU Digital Market Regulation

[PEST SWOT Politics （P） Economy （E） Society （S） Technology （T） Strengths （S） SP1 Safeguarding EU digital sovereignty

Compatibility between

SP2 Economic Digital Transformation Planning and Industrial Layout SE1 A fair and transparent digital economy environment

SE2 A Single Digital Market Strategy SS1 Respect for the tradition of privacy and freedom

SS2 Avoiding the risk of information and data abuse ST1 Mastering the power of rulemaking in the digital economy

ST2 Digital platform economy dominates Weaknesses （W） WP1 Lack of synergy and integration in institutional construction

WP2 Insufficient incentive momentum for market regulatory innovation system construction WE1 Technical risks and data WE2 compliance barriers

Digital infrastructure faces multiple obstacles WS1 Limited investment in artificial intelligence technology and research and development

WS2 Barriers to data usage and high compliance costs WT1 Lack of internet giants

WT2 High institutional costs for scientific and technological innovation enterprises Opportunities （O） OP1 Recognition of Digital Market Regulation

OP2 Compliance between standards， regulations， and policies and regulations OE1 Innovative Space for Digital Market Regulation

OE2 Data Altruism in Digital Market Regulation OS1 Tax Opportunities for Economic

OS2 Digitalisation

Free flow of data in the European Union OT1 Diversification of data governance in digital market regulation

OT2 The Moderate Transformation of Digital Market Regulation Threats （T） TP1 The Imbalance of the Actual Development Level of the Digital Economy

TP2 Strict regulation has become an obstacle to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises TE1 Monopoly issues in the digital economy

TE2 The Implementation Cost of Digital Market Regulation TS1 Digital transformation of the digital economy

TS2 Game in the field of digital trade TT1 Data security risks

TT2 Institutional balance between encouraging innovation and safeguarding human rights in TT2 ]

By matching and combining four strategic sectors： SO （Advantage Opportunity）， WO （Disadvantage Opportunity）， ST （Advantage Challenge）， and WT （Disadvantage Challenge）， the specific institutional development strategies have been formed with each strategic sector. Based on effective reflection of relevant research， the advantages of SO， WO， ST， and WT strategic sectors are flexibly utilised to clarify the external opportunities， potential advantages， challenges， and regulatory transformation of EU digital market regulation. Specifically， by utilising the advantages and opportunities of SO based on the impact assessment mechanism of the EU digital market regulation and dynamically tracking the development trend of digital market regulation， effective institutional implementation plans can be condensed. On the basis of full use of the comparison between WO's disadvantages and opportunities to carry out effective revitalisation， organic circulation， and overall linkage， by constantly screening out the external opportunities， opportunity cost， and practice deviations of EU digital market regulation， a practical experience model of effective regulation and practical diagnosis can be built. The application of the ST advantage and challenge model lies in resolving external challenges to institutional construction through the advantages of existing regulatory models and dynamic regulatory models. For example， comprehensively utilising various methods to control the spill over effects of digital market regulation. For example， the competitive advantage of the EU's single digital market strategy can be fully utilised， and the spill over effects of institutional risks can be comprehensively and effectively reduced through early warning mechanisms and risk assessment models. As a defensive strategy， WT helps to accurately identify internal weaknesses， conduct regulatory evaluations and effectiveness inspections of existing EU digital platform regulatory trends， and thus build an institutional framework that matches responsibility and scale.

The SWOT-PEST matrix analysis method can comprehensively assess the advantages， disadvantages， opportunities， and threats of regulating the EU digital single market order with the influence of political， economic， social， and technological factors. By comprehensively sorting out the Digital Services Act and Digital Market Act introduced by the EU， the aim is to clarify the advantages， opportunities， and threats of EU digital market regulation and conduct a regulatory impact assessment around the rulemaking of the digital market and the responsibility regulation model of large online platforms[12]. Drawing on foreign research， future regulatory impact assessments on crisis factors， process evaluations， risk indicators， technical scenarios， and other aspects of China's digital market regulation can serve as a practical basis， providing institutional corrections and implementation plans for the flexible application of strategic combinations.

2.2 Regulatory Impact Assessment of the EU Digital Market Regulation

On May 16， 2022， following approval by the European Parliament， the Council of the European Union formally approved the Data Governance Act （DGA）， which aims to optimise the data governance mechanism and achieve data co-governance and sharing by regulating the data governance model of the EU and giving play to the potential of data in economic and social development. The Digital Services Act aims to create a fair and competitive digital market environment， provide a practical and effective responsibility regulation model for large online digital platforms， and grant the EU sanctions and supervision power over large online digital platforms worldwide to help adjust government departments， intermediary platforms， and consumer rights protection. The regulatory object of the draft Digital Market Act is large online platform enterprises. It can facilitate advertisers to conduct independent verification and hosting by opening interoperability with third-party platforms， allowing users to sign contracts with third-party evaluation， not preventing third-party platform links， and not preventing users from unloading or preloading other apps. The draft also grants the EU a huge fine of up to 10% of global revenue to large platform companies that violate their liability obligations in order to strengthen the antitrust law enforcement of digital platforms[13].

The proposal of the above bill means that the EU has made appropriate regulatory adjustments and corrections to the deviations and dislocations in the regulatory model of digital markets in practice. The changes in legal scenarios also face a balance between normative reflection on doctrine and the impact of regulation. Specifically， the EU's digital market regulation， guided by the overall goal of continuing the previous development strategy of the digital single market， has conducted a regulatory impact assessment and functional adjustment of digital market regulation on the advantages， disadvantages， opportunities， and challenges that hinder the development of the EU's digital economy. Firstly， the EU has dynamically adjusted the regulatory framework for digital market regulation and unified enforcement standards. The regulatory system for EU digital platforms reflects the organic unity of legality， systematicity， and balance. Secondly， in terms of the law enforcement mechanism and coordination rules， the draft Digital Market Act regulates the superplatform in advance and defines the responsibilities and obligations. Introducing the obligation clauses of gatekeepers curbs unfair competition and abuse of market dominance， providing a regulatory basis and an impact assessment mechanism for regulating the healthy development of the digital market. Finally， the Digital Services Act passed in January 2022 aims to clarify the responsibilities and accountability of the platform by conducting content audits on algorithmic black boxes and effectively regulating large online internet platforms. It can be seen that the EU， as a leading developed economy in the world， has anchored legal scenarios for digital market regulation. The proposal of the above bill highlights the EU's desire to achieve a standardised and orderly development of the platform economy by creating global digital platform regulation rules[14].

3 Regulatory Adaptation and Transformation of Regulatory Models in the European Union's Digital Market Regulation

The changes in the legal landscape of the EU digital market highlight the EU's commitment to adopting unified digital rules， clarifying the responsibilities of digital service providers， and curbing vicious competition and monopolistic behaviour on super platforms. On the one hand， the promoters of the Digital Services Act， the Digital Market Act， and the Data Governance Act emphasised that the formulation of digital market rules should not be transferred to the market but should be effectively supervised and appropriately adjusted by the government. On the other hand， the updating and iteration of algorithms also pose new challenges to the traditional legal regulation system. The EU digital market regulation is facing the adjustment of the regulatory system and the transformation of regulatory models， urgently requiring an orderly balance between power regulation and rights protection in the intersection of law， regulation， and technology[15].

3.1 Regulation and Adjustment of EU Digital Market Regulation

The Digital Services Act is a consumer rights protection law that covers the field of the digital economy with rich content. Based on the unequal status and asymmetric capabilities between platforms and consumers， it imposes more behavioural obligations on powerful platforms by protecting online consumer rights while empowering small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers[16]. The EU's Digital Services Act presents a multi-dimensional regulatory concept， reflecting a comprehensive regulatory path and a diversified legislative trend. Specifically， firstly， strengthen the self-restraint obligations of intermediary service providers. The EU's Digital Services Act specifically stipulates in Chapter 2 the obligations that platforms should fulfil， such as corresponding obligations based on the different types of functions of the platform， to prevent the platform from illegally transmitting content， providing services for illegal content， and so on. Secondly， there is a direct obligation to protect individual end consumers. The Digital Services Act imposes transparency obligations on online advertising， focussing on biassed protection for disadvantaged digital consumers. Once again， the obligation to accept the constraints of external entities - \"trustworthy markers\". Trusted taggers are a newly established non-authoritative supervisory entity with the Digital Services Act， aimed at ensuring the legality of the content on online platforms[17]. A \"trustworthy marker\" is a third party who voluntarily participates in platform supervision; although they do not have administrative power， they can assist the platform in timely and effective handling of relevant illegal and harmful content. At the same time， for complaints from external entities， it is necessary to establish a sound internal complaint-handling mechanism and inform the complainant of the complaint handling decision without delay （Article 17 of the Act）. In cases where disputes cannot be properly resolved， according to Article 18 of the Act， service providers have the right to choose certified out-of-court dispute resolution institutions， and online platforms should be bound by the decisions made by such institutions. Finally， it is the obligation to accept deep supervision from the authorities of the host country， the European Commission， and the digital coordinator. On the one hand， mega-online platforms have the obligation to cooperate with regulatory oversight to the greatest extent possible. The EU and member states have stipulated the content of deep supervision for large-scale platforms with a certain scale. Chapter 3， Section 4 of the Digital Services Act specifically stipulates deep regulation of mega-online platforms. For online platforms within the EU with monthly active users equal to or greater than 45 million， risk impact assessment mechanisms are conducted annually， and regulatory measures can be taken proactively to achieve risk reduction. The European Commission on Digital Services， in conjunction with the European Commission， should issue a comprehensive report on systemic risks annually， while the European Commission， in conjunction with the Digital Services Coordinator， should issue general guidelines for specific risks， proposing best practices and feasible recommendations. At the same time， mega-platforms have the obligation to provide data for government regulatory information. According to Article 31 of the bill， at the request of the Digital Services Coordinator or the European Commission， super-large online platforms shall provide the necessary data for monitoring and evaluation within the specified period. On the other hand， in addition to mega online platforms， general online platforms （excluding micro and small platforms） have the obligation to report criminal suspects.

3.2 Regulatory Model Transformation of the EU Digital Market Regulation

The EU has become more diversified in the selection of regulatory tools for digital market regulation， established a unified and clear framework of digital rules， defined gatekeepers' access control clauses， strictly and clearly defined the obligations that gatekeepers should actively fulfil， and the unfair practices they should not engage in， which helps to promote a fair competitive environment in the digital single market. The functional adjustment of value pursuit and adjustment methods has been carried out in the transformation of regulatory models， highlighting the transformation of regulatory models. That is， flexible selection and application of multiple regulatory tools based on adhering to more complex legitimacy evaluation standards， reflecting a dialectical coupling thinking of balancing tools and applications.

Specifically， in terms of anchoring regulatory objectives， the EU digital market regulation highlights the complementary value of normative and instrumental values in the value pursuit and adjustment methods. In the legal context， on the one hand， the EU utilises legislative regulatory measures to regulate and hold large online platforms accountable and promotes a fair competition legal environment by maintaining digital sovereignty， effectively regulating the EU's single digital market order. On the other hand， the EU's digital market regulation has established more complex legitimacy evaluation standards and formed a complementary static norm and activation system in terms of rule supply， administrative enforcement， judicial intervention， empowerment， and other aspects. However， although the EU's digital market regulatory strategy provides standardised digital rules a regulatory base related to the EU digital sovereignty， and the transformation of regulatory models， it also faces the challenge of resolving the internal conflict between active systems and static rules， and achieving an orderly balance between power constraints and rights protection in regulatory games[16].

The Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act establish pre-regulated regulatory rules for large online platforms by defining obligations and responsibilities for super platforms， clearly defining relevant markets， and fair competition boundaries. These rules will be applied to protect the legitimate rights and interests of online consumers while providing customers with a more reliable and secure user experience， effectively regulating the abuse of market dominance by technology giants， creating a more standardised and orderly platform economy， and promoting innovation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time， the two bills also highlight the EU's determination to further strengthen its control over large US technology platforms and compete for data sovereignty and the digital market. Whether the Digital Services Act clarifies the security management and transparency obligations of digital service providers， especially the large online platforms， or the Digital Markets Act explicitly lists \"required implementation matters\" and \"prohibited implementation matters\" for \"gatekeepers\"， they are almost customised for American technology giants such as Google， Amazon， and Facebook. For example， typical cases investigated and dealt with by the EU in recent years （such as Amazon's case of using merchant data to gain unfair competition advantages）. Both laws have set strict punishment standards for violations on large online platforms， with maximum penalties of up to 6% -10% of global annual revenue， respectively. These new regulations will significantly increase the compliance burden on large online technology platforms， significantly increase their illegal costs， greatly facilitate EU investigations， save costs， shorten the time， and provide EU enterprises with opportunities to breathe and develop. However， the EU digital market regulation also faces evolutionary risks and practical challenges of regulatory competition[18]. The EU's digital market regulation also puts forward higher standards and stricter formal legal requirements for the legal regulatory system， which means that the EU's digital market regulation faces more complex and diversified regulatory goals and regulatory transformation trends. However， the introduction of the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act aims to break the monopolistic behaviour that technology giants already have or may implement should be seen， while also facing the adjustment and balance of market regulation， innovation incentives， and moderate regulation[19].

4 Regulatory Reflection on the EU Digital Market Regulation and China's Response Plan

Based on the evolution and adaptation of long-term data protection practices， the EU has formed a regulatory system for digital market regulation. With the passage of the Digital Services Act， the Digital Market Act， the Digital Governance Act， and other acts， the EU has established innovative regulatory models such as the gatekeeper obligation of digital platform regulation， the new EU rules of data neutrality， and the principle of data altruism. When providing the EU with a global voice in digital platform regulation， the EU is also facing changes in the legal scene and regulatory model transformation. Specifically， it can be characterised as the aggregation of new rights， the adjustment of regulatory functions， the diversification of regulatory objectives， and the balance of legal interest protection. The legal landscape changes and regulatory model transformation of the EU digital market regulation will also have a profound impact on the high-quality development of China's digital governance field and digital economy. How to proactively benchmark and connect in the context of the EU digital market regulation strategic transformation and explore the localisation response and legal leap of China's digital governance within the existing regulatory framework has become a current challenge. In the long run， China's localisation plan for responding to the EU's digital market regulation includes a systematic revision of digital market regulation based on a consumer segmentation perspective， diverse demands and standardised design criteria for data cross-border flow regulation legislation， and a three-dimensional supporting and improvement path for the anti-monopoly compliance regulation model of digital market regulation[20].

4.1 Plan the Construction of a Collaborative Regulatory System for Digital Market Regulation Based on Consumer Segmentation Perspective

The Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act， as regulatory schemes leading the governance of internet platforms in the EU， have also comprehensively reformed the regulatory model of digital services within the EU， exploring the fair competition review path of digital platform regulation from a competitive neutral perspective. The Data Governance Act provides rule guidance and value support for the EU's economic development and social governance， aiming to create a fair competitive environment in the EU's single digital market and the world to stimulate innovation， development， and competition. The Digital Services Law aims to regulate platforms in the digital field and shape the order of the digital market. By improving the security and transparency of the data platform regulatory space， it aims to provide a better user experience and protect consumer rights for online digital service users. The EU digital market regulation incorporates the conception of competition neutrality into the regulatory rules of large-scale digital platform regulation， achieving the dual goal of safeguarding consumer rights and fair competition on digital platforms through fair competition review[21].

For China， the legislative reform of digital platform regulation in the EU has practical mirror significance. At present， the construction of a regulatory system in the field of digital market regulation in China also faces issues such as market definition related to antitrust， regulatory difficulties in regulating internet giants， and fair competition review. With the existing anti-monopoly law analysis framework， the Internet giants' algorithms are faced with normative shackles and value conflicts， such as conspiring to infringe on consumers' rights and interests and using data resources to conduct unfair competition. Therefore， the competitive neutrality conception of the EU digital market regulation and exploring the path of promoting fair competition in digital market regulation from the perspective of consumer segmentation should be drawn on. On the one hand， the extraterritorial experience and China's path of digital market regulation and legislation with the guidance of the collaborative regulatory system need to be actively explored on the other hand， the Chinese scheme and local path of China's digital market regulation under the guidance of legal interpretation principles and technologies such as risk regulation， scenario application， pragmatism， etc. need to be explored.

4.2 Improving the Judicial Protection and Relief Mechanism of Digital Platform Supervision in China from the Perspective of Obtaining Digital Justice

The EU Digital Market Regulation Institute upholds the stance of digital justice， highlighting proactive regulation and guidance at the judicial level. On the basis of effectively reflecting the judicial guidance function of EU digital market regulation， China also needs to conduct a logical transformation of judicial value on the basis of refining the goal of digital justice. On the one hand， on the basis of clarifying the demand for judicial trials and services in digital platform regulation， procedural rights protection， dispute resolution efficiency improvement， and risk-effective supervision of digital platform regulation from the perspective of obtaining digital justice will be explored. On the other hand， by highlighting the rule guidance， interpretation reasoning， and relief functions of judicial adjudication， we aim to enhance the antitrust regulatory capacity and rights protection mechanism of China's digital platform supervision under the guidance of achieving digital justice judicial goals. Therefore， the procedural relief mechanism and legal continuity of China's digital platform supervision based on effective reflection of the regulatory resources， law enforcement resources， and judicial resources of the European Union's digital market regulation should be explored， taking into account legislative dynamics and changes in judicial practice， and strive to open up the practical gate of the public interest litigation system. Build a diversified and co-governance digital market regulatory governance system with Chinese characteristics. From a path perspective， China's Personal Information Protection Law has established a specialised public interest litigation system， promoting the realisation of the judicial protection system function of digital market supervision from the perspective of individual rights protection and collective rights integration. From the perspective of content， enhancing the judicial acceptability of China's digital market regulation from the perspective of achieving justice should revolve around the consensus of legal sources， uncontroversial application of laws， and sufficient evidence to enhance the acceptability of judicial protection functions. From the perspective of achieving justice， the judicial protection mechanism for digital platform supervision should be committed to building a transparent， open， and convenient sunshine judicial mechanism that can respond to the practical concerns of the public in a timely and efficient manner， continuously improve the level of judicial credibility， and also provide a good judicial environment for digital platform enterprises[22].

4.3 Improving China's Digital Platform Regulatory Framework from the Perspective of Achieving Digital Justice through A Diversified Co-Governance Model

The successive adoption of the EU Digital Market Act， the Digital Services Act， and the Digital Governance Act has promoted the normalisation and normalisation of the supply of digital market regulation. On the basis of regulating the real-time update of the supply， it has provided judicial service rationality criteria that reasonably define platform responsibilities， refine the protection of consumers' legitimate rights and interests， solve the unfair competition problem of digital platforms， and strengthen the protection of digital rights management， helping to empower the comprehensive transformation of new formats and models in the digital economy. The EU Digital Market Regulation Institute upholds the stance of digital justice， highlighting proactive regulation and guidance at the judicial level. On the basis of effectively reflecting the judicial guidance function of EU digital market regulation， China also needs to conduct a logical transformation of judicial value on the basis of refining the goal of digital justice. On the one hand， on the basis of clarifying the demand for judicial trials and services in digital platform regulation， procedural rights protection， dispute resolution efficiency improvement， and risk-effective supervision of digital platform regulation from the perspective of obtaining digital justice will be explored. On the other hand， by highlighting the rule guidance， interpretation reasoning， and relief functions of judicial adjudication， we aim to enhance the antitrust regulatory capacity and rights protection mechanism of China's digital platform supervision under the guidance of achieving digital justice judicial goals aim to be enhanced. Therefore， the procedural relief mechanism and legal continuity of China's digital platform supervision based on effective reflection of the regulatory resources， law enforcement resources， and judicial resources of the European Union's digital market regulation should be explored， taking into account legislative dynamics and changes in judicial practice， and strive to open up the practical gate of the public interest litigation system. Build a diversified and co-governance digital market regulatory governance system with Chinese characteristics. From a path perspective， To realize digital justice， China's digital platform regulatory framework must embrace a diversified co-governance model that aligns judicial， administrative， and public interests. Drawing insights from the EU's Digital Market and Digital Services regulations， which underscore proactive oversight and fair competition， China can further develop a regulatory ecosystem that supports both governmental and non-governmental stakeholder involvement. This co-governance model would involve clear legal responsibilities for platforms， active public participation， and transparent judicial processes， enabling a balanced distribution of regulatory duties. Additionally， by enhancing the judicial protection system to include specialized public interest litigation， China can ensure that individual and collective rights are safeguarded， fostering a legal environment that is responsive， transparent， and aligned with evolving digital practices. Ultimately， this model would strengthen digital justice by establishing collaborative oversight， where public institutions， regulatory authorities， and digital platform enterprises work together to uphold fairness， transparency， and accountability within the digital economy.

5 Conclusions

As the world's largest developed economy， the EU has become a new driving force for high-quality economic development in the digital economy. On the other hand， the monopoly situation and regulatory issues of large online digital platforms are becoming increasingly prominent. The promulgation of the aforementioned bill highlights the EU's obligation and responsibility to regulate super platforms in the field of platform economy by constructing digital regulatory rules. Effectively drawing on the reflective legislative experience and practices of the EU in digital platform regulation， the introduction of an impact assessment system can construct pre-regulation and antitrust regulatory rules and promote the healthy and orderly development of China's platform economy. Therefore， the specific enforcement mechanism design and antitrust regulation model of the EU digital platform regulation under the data compliance framework should be actively drawn on. Through the introduction of industry self-discipline， government regulation， and legal regulation impact assessment systems， a unified institutional framework of rights， responsibilities， and interests should be constructed. On this basis， the digital service coordinator system to bridge the gatekeeper obligations of digital market platform regulation should be introduced. Continuously implementing the fair competition review system in practice helps to clarify the legal scene and response strategies for China's digital market regulation[23]. For a long time， the regulatory model of the Chinese digital market has still been constrained by the binary divide between the traditional \"command control\" paradigm and the \"market incentive\" paradigm， the reflexive legal paradigm of EU digital market regulation provides an inter-subject regulatory path for reshaping the benign communication relationship between the government and market， the self-regulation among the market entities was emphasized， various regulatory tools and organizational structure mechanisms were used by flexibly utilizing for innovation， different subsystems for corporate regulation were formed， thus， the institutional capacity and implementation effectiveness of legal regulations were continuously enriched. The regulatory model of reflexive law incentivises enterprises to pursue legitimacy through self-reflection in the organisational structure innovation， information disclosure mechanism innovation， and communication and negotiation mechanism innovation， seeking broad consensus and collaborative regulation across different subsystems. However， the regulation of reflexive law also faces practical challenges. The regulation of EU digital markets has its own space for social autonomy and private order. Once reflexive laws are introduced， it may face the embarrassing situation of prescribing the wrong medicine to sow \"dragon seeds\" and reap \"fleas\". As a rising star in the field of digital economy， China also faces the problem of creative transformation and innovative development of digital trade regulation at the level of legal evolution. The introduction of a reflexive legal regulation mode can help achieve mechanism innovation and negotiation communication mechanism on the basis of a stable enterprise organisational structure. Therefore， further theoretical discussions and more suitable practical explorations are needed to explore the legal path of digital market regulation in China with the regulation of reflexive law.

References：

[1] CHENG Y. Data protection and abstraction law regulation under the meta-regulatory model-taking the EU General Data Protection Regulation as a research sample[J]. Legal Science （Journal of Northwestern University of Political Science and Law） ， 2019， 37（4）： 48⁃55.

[2] CUI C C， XU Z X. Data protection impact assessment system： EU legislation and Chinese solution[J]. Library and Information Work， 2020（5）： 41.

[3] YE K R. \"Long-arm jurisdiction\" in the regulation of cross-border data flows： a fundamentalist examination of the EU GDPR[J]. Law Review， 2020（1）： 106.

[4] ZOU J. Research on the regulatory mechanism of cross-border flow of personal data based on the EU General Data Protection Regulation[J]. Journalism University， 2019（12）： 16.

[5] LIN L， LI Z Y. Dual-track mechanism for personal information protection： legislative insights from the EU General Data Protection Regulation[J]. Journalism University， 2019（12）： 115.

[6] PENG Y. A study on the trade regulation of data localization measures[J]. Global Law Review， 2018（2）： 178.

[7] DING X D. What is the right to data？ -the protection of data privacy from the European General Data Protection Regulation[J]. Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law， 2018（4）： 39.

[8] ZHAI Z Y. The rise of data sovereignty and its dual attributes[J]. China Law Review， 2018（6）：196.

[9] PENG Y. Conflict and resolution of data privacy protection under the perspective of trade regulation[J]. Comparative Law Studies， 2018（4）： 176.

[10] WU W G. Critique of the theory of protection of personal data information privacy rights under big data technology[J]. Politics and Law， 2016（7）： 116.

[11] JIN J. The EU General Data Protection Regulation： evolution， points and doubts[J]. European Studies， 2018（4）：3.

[12] MA Y F， KONG G C. Research on issues related to cross-border data flow of Internet financial enterprises in China[J]. Price Theory and Practice， 2020（4）： 152.

[13] HU W. International law challenges of cross-border data flows and China's response[J]. Social Scientist， 2017（11）： 107.

[14] HY W T. The concept of defining sensitive personal information in China[J]. Chinese Jurisprudence， 2018（5）： 235.

[15] FAN W. Reconstructing the path of personal information protection in the era of big data[J]. Global Law Review， 2016（5）： 92.

[16] HERT D P. The right to data portability in the GDPR： towards user-centric interoperability of digital services[J]. Computer Law amp; Security Review， 2018， 34（2）： 193⁃203.

[17] VANBERG D A. The right to data portability in the GDPR： what lessons can be learned from the EU experience？[J]. Journal of Internet Law， 2018， 21（7）： 12⁃21.

[18] SWIRE P， LAGOS Y. Why the right to data portability likely reduces consumer welfare： antitrust and privacy critique[J]. Md. L. Rev.， 2012， 72： 335.

[19] RUTH J. Data portability-a tale of two concepts[J]. Intell. Prop. Info. Tech. amp; Elec. Com. L， 2017（8）： 59.

[20] WYNNE L W M， LIU X Y. Does data portability facilitate entry？[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization， 2020， 69： 102⁃564.

[21] HUTH D L S， MATTHES F. A service definition for data portability[J]. ICEIS， 2019（2）： 169⁃176.

[22] WEISS" S. Privacy threat model for data portability in social network applications[J]. International Journal of Information management， 2009， 29（4）： 249⁃254.

[23] RUTH J. Data portability under the GDPR： a blueprint for access rights？[J]. Data Access， Consumer Interests and Public Welfare. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH amp; Co. KG， 2021.

欧盟数字市场监管治理的规制影响评估与中国因应策略

康兰平

（合肥工业大学" 文法学院，合肥 230009）

摘" " 要：欧盟《一般数据保护条例》（GDPR）作为兼顾市场规制与政府监管双重目标导向的数据保护立法，其制度设计的初衷在于推动数据要素市场培育，对于数据处理主体的行为进行规制。GDPR引入了民事法律规范参与数据市场规制，开启了数据控制人义务规范为核心的权利保护模式。然而从GDPR在全球范围的执法效果来看，欧盟单一数字市场的权力规制模式作为外向输出型的全球标准与保护框架面临着数据市场扩张的创新激励与人权保护的张力，亟须在GDPR框架下进行适当的规制理念调适与治理模式转型。新一轮的欧盟数字市场监管开启了更为温和与和缓化的数据治理规制模式，法律场景的变迁与数字平台监管更加契合全球数字经济发展的规制需求与发展目标，彰显了欧盟致力于提升全球数字市场份额与竞争力的决心。我国应当谨慎评估欧盟新一轮数字市场监管的影响态势与安全风险，扬弃地借鉴欧盟数字市场监管的技术立场、制度框架与规制路径，提供应对欧盟数字市场监管的中国方案与规制模式，提升我国在全球数字经济领域的制度话语权与规则制定主导权。

关键词：欧盟数字市场监管；GDPR；规制模式；法治因应