Technology Competition Disputes

In competition disputes involving technology, a central question is often whether a particular technical outcome was feasible in the counterfactual scenario advanced by one of the parties. This requires an assessment grounded in what the relevant technology could and could not do at the material time, taking account of the state of the art, industry best practice, and the specific constraints of the systems in question. In my experience, this type of analysis benefits from a practitioner perspective, because the theoretical capabilities of a technology and its practical implementation in a commercial environment can differ significantly.

Best-practice benchmarking is another area where technology expert evidence can assist the tribunal. This involves comparing the respondent's technical practices, architecture decisions, or platform design against what would be expected of a reasonably competent participant in the relevant market. The assessment may address questions such as whether interoperability restrictions were technically necessary, whether data portability mechanisms met reasonable standards, or whether API access limitations served a legitimate technical purpose as opposed to a purely commercial one. The analysis draws on published standards, industry guidelines, and the expert's own experience of comparable systems.

Technology expert evidence in competition matters is typically produced alongside economic expert evidence, and the two disciplines often interact. The technology expert may be asked to comment on whether assumptions in the economic model are technically sound, or to provide factual grounding for the counterfactual scenario. In each case, the objective is to assist the tribunal with clear, technically accurate evidence that acknowledges the limits of what can be determined and avoids straying into economic or legal conclusions.