正在确认阅读权限…
The Institutional Architecture Behind Algorithmic Price Discrimination in Digital Markets
数字市场中算法价格歧视背后的制度架构
-
Algorithmic price discrimination now operates across e-commerce, insurance, and credit platforms without explicit consumer consent.算法化价格歧视现已在电子商务、保险和信贷平台中普遍运行，且未获得消费者明确同意。
-
Unlike traditional segmentation, these systems exploit real-time behavioral data to infer willingness-to-pay with high granularity.与传统用户分群不同，这些系统利用实时行为数据，以极高精度推断用户的支付意愿。
-
Regulatory frameworks lag significantly, as antitrust law still centers on static market power rather than dynamic data advantage.监管框架严重滞后，反垄断法仍聚焦于静态市场势力，而非动态数据优势。
-
Firms justify differential pricing by citing efficiency gains, yet evidence shows disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority users.企业以提升效率为由为差异化定价辩护，但证据表明其对低收入群体和少数族裔用户造成了不成比例的负面影响。
-
Transparency mandates remain weak because proprietary algorithms are shielded under trade secrecy doctrines.透明度要求依然薄弱，因为专有算法受商业秘密原则保护。
-
Courts struggle to assess harm when no overt exclusion occurs—only subtle, cumulative affordability erosion.当未发生明显排斥行为、仅有隐性且累积性的可负担性侵蚀时，法院难以认定损害。
-
Emerging proposals focus on 'fairness-by-design' standards rather than retroactive enforcement after consumer injury.新兴政策提案聚焦于‘设计即公平’标准，而非在消费者受损后进行追溯性执法。
-
Yet such standards face resistance from platform operators citing competitive necessity and innovation costs.然而，此类标准遭到平台运营商抵制，理由是存在竞争必要性及创新成本压力。
-
Public policy must reconcile data-driven efficiency with procedural justice in pricing mechanisms.公共政策必须在数据驱动的效率与定价机制中的程序正义之间取得平衡。
-
This tension reveals how market governance increasingly depends on code architecture—not just legal statutes.这一张力揭示出：市场治理日益依赖代码架构，而不仅是法律条文。
-
Without binding interoperability or audit rights, algorithmic pricing will continue to widen latent inequities.若无强制性的互操作权或审计权，算法定价将持续加剧潜在不平等。
-
Ultimately, price fairness is no longer about uniformity but about intelligible, contestable, and redressable decision logic.归根结底，价格公平已不再关乎统一性，而在于决策逻辑是否可理解、可质疑、可救济。