Digital platforms as a type of economic market relations and the reflection of this aspect in the legal regime of digital platforms

1. Introduction

The platform form of the organization of economic relations means that economic actors interact through a specially created technological platform (platform) that provides them with a place to meet, organizes their meeting and, in many cases, regulates and controls the process of their interaction. The platform allows several types of market participants to meet in one place, which for the platform operator are clients, as a rule, of different types. At the same time, the more users there are, the more valuable the platform is for them.

In this paper, we are talking specifically about digital platforms on which user interaction occurs through the use of special computer programs, access to which is possible from subscriber devices (computers, phones, tablets) through information and telecommunications networks, mainly through the Internet.

It is worth noting that there is no universally recognized definition of digital platforms. The discrepancy is due, among other things, to different approaches to understanding the digital platform: is it a technology, an information system, a business model, market relations, etc. Here are just some of the definitions contained in official documents. Even at this level, there are different approaches to understanding digital platforms. An even greater variety can be found in the scientific literature.

Thus, the Main directions of development of the financial market of the Russian Federation for 2022 and the period 2023 and 2024, developed by the Bank of Russia, define the digital platform as "an information system operating via the Internet, which ensures the interaction of platform participants with each other, allowing them to create and exchange values" (URL: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/403009775 / (date of request: 07/24/2023)).

In the main directions of the implementation of the digital agenda of the Eurasian Economic Union until 2025, approved. By the Decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council No. 12 dated October 11, 2017, "digital platform is a system of tools that supports the use of digital processes, resources and services by a significant number of subjects of the digital ecosystem and provides the possibility of their seamless interaction" (URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_282472/92d3e3d03094ed76da5c15fa72b687f1cebd5931 /(accessed: 07/24/2023)).

The concept of general regulation of the activities of groups of companies developing various digital services based on one "ecosystem" in 2021, posted on the website of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, contains the following definition of a digital platform: "this is a business model that allows consumers and suppliers to communicate online to exchange products, services and information (digital services), including provision of products/services/information of own production" (URL: https://www.economy.gov.ru/material/departments/d31/koncepciya_gos_regulirovaniya_cifrovyh_platform_i_ekosistem / (accessed: 07/24/2023)).

The following types of digital platforms are common: services that publish content (video, music, etc.), mapping services, platforms based on the economy of shared consumption, dating services, travel booking services, food delivery services, online games, job search services, service platforms, marketplaces, rental services, payment systems, social networks, search engines, passenger transportation services, app stores, news aggregators ^[1]. This list is not a scientific classification built in accordance with a certain classification criterion, but is given only to understand the phenomenon under study and how widespread it is in our lives.

Digital platforms have penetrated almost all spheres of public life, researchers call this process a "platform revolution" ^[2].  Access to digital platforms takes place via the Internet, whose users account for 59.5% of the world's population (at the beginning of 2021). At the same time, people spend on the Internet on average almost 7 hours a day, i.e. approximately 42% of their waking life. Access to digital platforms is carried out primarily through mobile phones, whose users at the beginning of 2021 there were 5.22 billion people, which accounted for 66.6% of the world's population ^[3].

Social networks have become widespread among digital platforms: 53% of the world's population use them and spend an average of 2 hours and 25 minutes there every day, which corresponds to about one waking day every week. In addition, marketplaces are widely used. Thus, almost 77% of the world's Internet users aged 16 to 64 buy something online every month (in Russia - 60%) ^[3]. In 2021, 46.6% of the Russian population aged 15 to 74 years used the Internet to order goods and services, 16.5% of organizations used electronic sales, which increased 3 times compared to 2013-2015 ^[4]

Digital platforms have become the most progressive form of business process organization. To describe the role of digital platforms in economic activity, researchers use the term "platformization of the economy" (Report for public consultations of the Bank of Russia "Ecosystems: Approaches to regulation", April 2021 URL: https://cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/119960/Consultation_Paper_02042021.pdf (accessed: 07/24/2023)). In Russia, the share of organizations using digital platforms amounted to 14.7% in 2021 ^[4].

At the same time, ecosystems are developing – systems of digital platforms that can be accessed through a single user profile. Thus, seven companies from the top 8 companies in the world by market capitalization are implementing an ecosystem model. According to McKinsey experts, by 2025 ecosystems may account for about 30% of global GDP ($60 trillion) (Report for public consultations of the Bank of Russia "Ecosystems: Approaches to regulation", April 2021). Among the national ecosystems can be called Yandex, Beber, etc. Thus, the digital ecosystem of Beber includes banking services, B2B services, foodtech, health, e-commerce and much more (URL: https://www.sberbank.com/ru/ecs (accessed: 07/24/2023)). The Yandex ecosystem includes search engines, e-commerce, delivery, entertainment services, ad services, etc. (URL: https://ir .yandex.ru/key-businesses (accessed: 07/24/2023)).

Legal science studies the legal regulation of digital platforms in national law, foreign legal systems and at the international level. Russian legal science is no exception. However, there are no studies aimed at a comprehensive analysis of the essential characteristics of digital platforms in order to identify such features that require their reflection in the legal regime of platforms. Such studies are necessary, they are important for the construction of the theory of legal regulation of digital platforms, the formation of a system of legal regulation, the creation of specific legal norms governing digital platforms. Any relationship requires adequate legal regulation of its essence.

The relevance of the topic is enhanced by the fact that the legal regime of digital platforms cannot be called formed, regulatory decisions have a fragmented, point-by-point nature. Attempts to comprehend the problems associated with the activities of digital platforms are being made in various fields of science. There is a need for a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach from the point of view of the interaction of different sciences: technical, economic, legal, as well as in the aspect of research on the legal regime of digital platforms, regardless of the sectoral affiliation of the norms regulating them: civil, administrative, labor, financial and other branches of law and, accordingly, regardless of their private or public law character.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the essential characteristics of a digital platform as a type of economic market relations, to identify those characteristics that can be reflected in the national legal regime of digital platforms, as well as to model a system of elements of the legal regime of digital platforms in Russia that reflect these characteristics.

Research methodology. The author proceeds from the fact that the digital platform is a multidimensional phenomenon. Based on the analysis of the activities of digital platforms and scientific literature of different industry affiliation, the author suggests highlighting the following aspects of understanding the digital platform: technological, economic, legal, sociological, political, biological. It is possible to highlight other aspects. Some of the above-mentioned aspects (for example, the economic and legal aspects that are most important for legal research platforms) have their own differentiation. This study analyzes the economic understanding of the digital platform and solves the question of what legal significance the economic characteristics of the platform have.

The economic view of the concept of a digital platform is the most multifaceted. At least the following approaches to understanding the digital platform from an economic point of view can be distinguished:

1) digital platform as a type of economic structure, a type of economic market relations;

2) digital platform as a type of economic activity;

3) digital platform as a form of economic activity organization.

4) digital platform as an economic entity, economic agent, market participant.

These approaches to understanding the digital platform as an economic phenomenon are not exhaustive. For example, a platform can be considered from the point of view of its participation in the development of innovations, as well as as an object of investment.

The present study focuses on the analysis of the characteristics of the platform as a type of economic market relations. The materials for the analysis were sources of scientific economic and legal literature, empirical data on the use of platforms by the author of the study. Based on this analysis, conclusions are drawn about the main characteristics of the platform economy that may have legal significance.

The legal model of these characteristics is further formulated. This model can become the basis for the formation of the legal regime of digital platforms. When modeling, the analysis of the current regulatory content of the legal regime of digital platforms is also used.

Research methods: description, analysis and synthesis for the study of the digital platform as a type of economic relations and the formulation of conclusions, a formal legal method for the analysis of regulatory regulation, a modeling method for the formulation of the legal regime of digital platforms.

Modeling of the legal regime of digital platforms is carried out within the framework of the national legislation of Russia. Beyond the scope of the study remains the supranational level of regulation that is inherent in digital platforms, based on the global nature of the activities of many of them, as well as the application of conflict-of-laws norms of national legislation to regulate relations that develop on the platform when they are complicated by a foreign element. At the same time, the work uses economic research by foreign authors, the subject of which was largely global platforms.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in modeling the national legal regime of digital platforms in Russia based on the analysis of the digital platform as a type of economic market relations, as well as in some conclusions made by the author regarding the legal significance of the characteristics of digital platforms as economic market relations:

1) a system of contractual relations has been built that develops on a digital platform, depending on which participants of platform relations conclude contracts and what function these contracts perform on the platform;

2) it is proposed to introduce the presumption of the application of the legal regime of the contract of accession for contracts concluded between users and the operator of the platform;

3) it is proposed to introduce into the digital platform mode the operator's right to declare the platform open (accessible to anyone who applies for the platform's services) or closed (accessible to persons determined by the platform operator);

4) the provision is justified that if the platform operator declares it open, the contracts concluded with it should be subject to the regime of public contracts, which it is advisable to explicitly specify in the legislation;

5) it is concluded that it is necessary to include in the legal regime of digital platforms a norm on categories of consumers for whom other conditions of a public contract can be determined in order to provide digital platform operators with a certain freedom in forming different conditions for consumers, taking into account their economic loyalty and, possibly, other economically and socially justified factors;

6) it is concluded that the relationship between the platform operator and its users can be mediated by contracts for the provision of services free of charge, which should not deprive the user of the legal status of a consumer.

This study is an integral part of a comprehensive study of the legal regime of digital platforms. At the same time, it has a complete, relatively independent character and can be presented separately from other parts. The author's modeling of the remaining elements of the legal regime of digital platforms goes beyond the scope of this work and is carried out on the basis of an analysis of other economic and other aspects of understanding the digital platform.

2. The main part

2.1. Features of the digital platform as a type of economic relations

Consider platforms as a feature of the current stage of economic development, as a platform economy, a certain kind of economic market relations.

Considering platforms as a special type of market in which different groups of participants interact in a special way is the most common approach to the concept of the platform economy. Economic research on this aspect laid the foundation for the theory of digital platforms. Among the most famous authors: Rochet and Tirol (Rochet, Tirole), Parker and Alstyne (Parker, Alstyne), Keio and Julien (Caillaud, Jullien), Evans (Evans), Armstrong (Armstrong).

The platform economy has significant specifics in comparison with the "normal" market economy. According to the researchers, most traditional methods of economic analysis are not suitable for analyzing multilateral online platforms, and their use can lead to incorrect recommendations for regulating digital platforms ^[5]. We can already talk about a new economic theory – the theory of platform economics, platform markets.

Let's highlight the main characteristics of the platform economy that may have legal significance.

1. V. D. Markova and I. S. Trapeznikov define the platform economy as an economy based on the fact that companies use external platforms and ecosystems associated with these platforms that are not owned or controlled by companies for their work ^[6]. In this aspect, the platforms themselves are considered as a kind of model for organizing market relations between market participants. It can be said that today economic agents enter platform markets to engage in economic relations and promote their products.

Using terminology from the special economic literature, these are bilateral or multilateral markets ^{[7, 8, 9, 10]}. Thus, according to J. Rochet and J. Tirole, multilateral platforms are markets that can provide interaction between end users and "take two (or several) parties on board" by setting an appropriate price for each of them ^[11]. M. Armstrong defines bilateral markets as "markets involving two groups of agents, interacting through "platforms", where the benefit of one group from joining the platform depends on the size of the other group that joins the platform" ^[12].

The platform economy is bilateral or multilateral in the sense that it is based on the interaction, as a rule, of two groups of market agents – those who offer their goods and services, and those who purchase them. The market may be more complicated when other groups of economic agents participate in it. Thus, in a study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as in a report by the Bank of Russia, attention is drawn to the existence of tripartite platforms that include three groups of participants with different interests, for example, content providers, consumers and advertisers, and quadrilateral platforms, for example, in the field of payment cards. A larger number of participants is also possible (Report for public consultations of the Bank of Russia "Ecosystems: Approaches to Regulation", April 2021; Rethinking Antitrust Tools for Multi-Sided Platforms. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2018. URL: www.oecd.org/competition/rethinking-antitrust-tools-for-multi-sided-platforms.htm (accessed: 07/24/2023)).

2. Platform markets are organized centralized markets. The organization of the market, its regulation, and control over its functioning are carried out by the platforms themselves as private economic agents. Other economic agents are concentrated around specific platforms, certain areas of commodity markets are aggregated on them. Market aggregation was recognized by D. Parker, M. Alstin and S. Chaudhary as one of the structural transformations in the economy that the platform revolution led to ^[2]. The organization of the market takes place through the provision of access to digital platforms, as well as, which is an essential characteristic of the platform market, through the regulation of the market by the platform operator. The platform sets the rules for the interaction of the market parties, and often also control this interaction.

3. The authors note another structural transformation that the development of digital platforms has led to is the restoration of mediation ^[2]. Mediation in the platform organization of market relations has a peculiar character. In platform markets, there are no other intermediaries between sellers and buyers, except for the platform itself, which changes the structure of the market, excluding other intermediaries from market relations. However, the platform itself (its operator) is, from the specified economic point of view, an intermediary between the two sides of market relations. For example, A. Gawer considers platforms as a special kind of markets that play the role of intermediaries in the exchange between different types of consumers ^[13].

4. In addition to the bilateral or multilateral nature of platform market relations, most researchers name network effects as the most important feature of the platform economy. Thus, D. S. Evans identifies among the most characteristic features of multilateral platforms the emergence of significant network externalities (when an increase in the number of participants increases the individual utility for each agent on the same side of the platform (positive direct externalities) and an increase in the number of participants on one side of the platform leads to an increase in individual utility received on the other side of the platform (positive cross externalities)) ^[14].

5. Foreign and Russian researchers consider digital platforms as a type of market functioning with its own specific features, including pricing ^{[15, 16]}. Thus, D. S. Evans identifies another most characteristic feature of multilateral platforms as the non-neutrality of the price structure, which allows the platform to influence the number of transactions concluded on it by setting different prices for participants ^[14].

The specifics of pricing lies, firstly, in setting different prices for participants, which is called the multilateral nature of pricing, which distinguishes platforms from conventional trade intermediation, with which platforms are often compared. Payment for platform services may be charged only from one side of the platform participants, or discounts may be provided to the other side. Secondly, the ratio of prices set by the platform for each of the parties does not depend on marginal costs, the assigned price may be lower than marginal costs and even be negative on the side where participants have a relatively high sensitivity to price changes, and their presence on the platform attracts a large number of participants on the other side with relatively low price sensitivity ^[15]. This phenomenon is called a new form of price discrimination, it is based on differences in the ability of one side to attract agents on the other side ^[10].

6. The Internet plays an important role in the economy of platforms. J. Parker, M. van Alstyn and S. Chaudhary characterized its role in the economy of platforms in this way: the Internet becomes not only a communication channel, but also a means of creating infrastructure and a coordination mechanism ^[2]. O. N. Antipina, calling platforms multilateral markets of the era of digitalization, He notes that the Internet has made it possible to turn multilateral markets into platforms, namely, to create a kind of "platform" on which economic agents "arrive" and to ensure interaction and coordination between them ^[15].

7. It seems that the most important characteristic of the platform market is that the platform, by establishing and controlling the interaction between market participants, gets access to a large amount of information about the market, its structure, transactions, prices and other terms of transactions, the success of a product on the market. The asymmetry of the amount of information that the platform has, on the one hand, and its customers, on the other, provides the platform with huge opportunities to manage the market, and often to manipulate it. The digital nature of the platform deepens this information asymmetry: the platform has the ability to analyze easily accessible information using algorithms, automatically. The illegal use of huge arrays of personal, business and technical information that aggregate platforms is becoming more active ^[15]. Digital platforms allow multiplying and improving traditional market relations with the help of digital technologies, storage of large amounts of data, access to information. They provide new opportunities to market participants due to the mutual influence of two effects: network and innovation ^[17].

8. In the form of a platform business, commodity markets can function that are somehow related to information. Today, information is important for all types of commodity markets: it can act as a commodity, or it can concern the product itself and its manufacturer. However, the more important the information plays in the market of this product, the more this market tends to the platform form ^[2]. Thus, markets with a high information component are most susceptible to platform transformation.

9. Domestic researchers of the economic essence of platforms O. A. Gerasimenko, Y. E. Davydova and A. A. Frolova note that in the platform economy, market agents can interact through ecosystems and create common results together, while the platform economy is based on more complex and branched organizational structures in the form of network or virtual forms of partnership that rely on modern digital technologies ^[18]. This characteristic of the platform economy allows us to say that elements of the so–called sharing economy can be implemented through platforms (sharing economy – from sharing economy – sharing economy (from to share - sharing)), sharing economy ^[19]. Consumers can become producers, that is, customers of the other side of the platform. The platform in the terminology of D. Parker, M. Alstin and S. Chaudhary, as it were, "turns the business inside out" ^[2].

10. Platforms are open markets, they are open to the entry of new players – producers of goods and services and their consumers. However, the degree of openness may be different, it depends on the discretion of the platform operator.

11. Many authors note the peculiarity of competition in the platform market as one of the specific features of this market ^{[15, 16]}. Thus, D. Parker, M. Alstin and S. Chaudhary attribute network effects to a competitive advantage in platform business ^[2]. At the same time, the authors note that network effects trigger a self-reinforcing feedback loop, and under certain conditions, strong network effects can lead competition between platforms to a winner-takes-all result ^[20].

D. S. Evans, R. Schmalensee identify factors that determine the level of concentration of the digital platform market. So network effects and economies of scale lead to an increased level of market concentration. Of course, some factors inherent in the platform market may reduce competition: These are platform differentiation, limitations of their capacity (bandwidth), switching costs, which are associated with the ease of transferring consumer data from one platform to another ^[21]. However, in general, market development leads to increased market concentration. The dominance of large digital platforms in the market is a characteristic feature of the platform market. Facebook is dominated by the largest digital platforms, the so-called "Internet giants" (the terms "GAFA" (from the first letters Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon), FAMGA (Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Apple), BAT (Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent) are used to designate them). A. V. Asadullina explains the appearance of this phenomenon by scale effects, network effects, as well as anti-competitive behavior of companies owning digital platforms ^[22]. Dominance in the market inevitably leads to the practice of abuse of it, that is, to monopolistic activity, leading to restriction of competition.

12. The specifics of employment are also recognized as a feature of the platforms. Self-employment is expanding, which is a risk for the state (according to O. N. Antipina, the process of taxation and regulation of the labor market is becoming more complicated ^[15]), and for those employed in the market (their level of social security is decreasing).

2.2. Reflection of the main characteristics of platform economic relations in the legal regime of digital platforms

Let us further present a legal model of these features.

1. Let's start with the fact that platforms are a system of market relations between producers, consumers, and other entities that interact through the platform. The economic essence of the platforms makes it possible to understand what is the economic nature of the relations underlying the definition of the types and types of contracts included in the system of contractual relations between economic agents.

A legal view of the platform helps to present it as a system of contracts. It is worth noting that some relations can be clothed in different contractual types and types, based on the principles of freedom of economic relations and freedom of contracts. In addition, the scheme of contractual relations may depend on the type of platform. In the legal literature, attention is mainly paid not to the entire system of contractual relations, but to individual types (types) and groups of contracts concluded on the platform. A systematic approach is observed in studies of contractual relations regarding the sale of goods, works, services on the platform, in which the platform operator, the seller (performer) and the consumer participate (see, for example: ^[23]). At the same time, the following issues are being resolved: whether such contracts are concluded with the platform operator or directly with the seller (contractor) ^[24], whether the contracts between the platform operator and the user providing services through the platform have a civil or labor-legal nature, to which contractual type such contracts belong ^{[25, 26, 27, 28]}.

It is possible to build the following system of contractual relations that develop on a digital platform, depending on which participants of platform relations conclude contracts and what function these contracts perform on the platform:

a) contracts concluded between the platform operator and its users, whose function is to provide users with access to the platform and its services. To access the platform market, economic agents need to enter into contractual relations with the platform operator. The type of such contracts is determined by the economic essence of the platform activity. In most cases, these are contracts for the provision of services, but they can also be mixed contracts, including, for example, elements of an agency agreement with respect to payments accepted from users of one side of the platform for users of the other side (for the direct relationship between users and the operator of the platform for the realization of value on the platform, see paragraph "b" below).

At the same time, the terms of contracts concluded by the platform operator with users from different sides of the platform, in most cases, will be different. For example, contracts with users of one party may be entrepreneurial, and their regulatory regulation provides more contractual opportunities for the parties; freedom of contract in this case is most fully manifested. Contracts with users of the other party may be consumer contracts with appropriate regulatory regulation in the direction of increased legal protection of the consumer of the platform's services. It is also possible to imagine the existence of labor-legal relations (for example, a platform operator ordering taxi services with taxi drivers), which is subject to special regulation by labor law norms characterized by the provision of increased protection to employees. It is not excluded that third-party clients of the platform, for example advertisers on content platforms, with whom contracts of other content are concluded, may participate in economic platform relations.;

b) contracts concluded between users of the platform whose function is to ensure the realization of value through the platform. The economic essence of the platform is the establishment of interaction, that is, contractual relations, between economic agents located on different sides of the platform. Depending on the type of platform, but rather on the type of commodity market that functions as a platform market, these can be contracts of different types and types: purchase and sale (on marketplaces for the purchase of goods), provision of services (educational, payment, transport, hotel, household), performance of works (repair), transfer of rights to the results of intellectual activity (on platforms for watching movies, reading books, listening to music) and contracts for the acquisition of corporate rights (on investment platforms);

c) contracts concluded between the platform operator and its users, whose function is to ensure the realization of value through the platform. There may be no direct contractual relationship between customers of different parties when the platform operator acts as a customer agent or dealer. In this case, the platform operator itself enters into contractual relations with customers;

d) contracts concluded by the platform operator with software developers whose function is to ensure the functioning of the platform as a technological platform.

The existence of this group of contracts is dictated rather not by the economic understanding of the platform market, but by the technological device of the digital platform. Thus, a complete system of contractual relations can be built by considering the platform from different points of view (above we talked about different approaches to understanding the platform).

The researchers note that from a technological point of view, the platform includes digital infrastructure, which includes broadband, fixed and mobile Internet access networks, user equipment (smartphones and laptops), payment and geolocation services and applications, cloud computing services, etc.^[29] A. Gawer interprets platforms from an engineering point of view as purposefully designed technological architectures (including interfaces) that promote innovation; their design allows companies to create product families and innovate faster and more systematically by using and reusing common products as templates for innovative products. We are talking about such a feature of the platform as its modular technological structure ^[13].

Thus, the digital platform is a combination of the main technology (core technology, platform core) and additional technologies (applied technologies, platform peripherals). Thus, according to S. Muegge, the platform is a set of partially or fully open basic technologies and additional assets that can be used by companies and individuals to develop complementary technologies, products and services ^[30]. Such components of the platform as the core and peripherals were studied by S. A. Kuznetsova and V. D. Markov on the example of the 1C: Enterprise platform, which consists of the 1C digital platform (core) – a software shell over the database and application solutions (configurations) developed on its basis that solve specific tasks: "1C: Accounting", "1C: Trade Management", "1C: Salary and personnel management", "1C: Business Management" and others ^[31].

Thus, for the functioning of the platform, the platform operator enters into contractual relations with the developers of computer programs. At the same time, the software core of the digital platform can be developed by internal divisions of the platform operator, and "external" civil contracts can be concluded with extension developers, although these are optional models of contractual relations.

It is worth noting that for the functioning of the platform as a technological platform, cloud services are needed to store a large array of data processed by any platform, automated data processing services (artificial intelligence programs) and other digital programs and technologies, the functioning of which can be provided by external companies with which relevant contracts are concluded (license, services);

e) contracts concluded between the platform operator and the copyright holder of the main platform technology, the function of which is to ensure the organizational functioning of the platform.

This group of contracts is related to the understanding of the platform as an organizational form of doing business (one of the aspects of the economic understanding of the platform).

As noted by D. Parker, M. Alstin, S. Chaudhary, there are two persons behind the company representing the digital platform – the company that manages the platform and directly deals with users (the "manager"), and the company that pays for the platform and retains legal control over the technology (the "sponsor"). In many cases, it is the same company, but there may be different, and even groups of companies on each of these functions. The platform manager manages and controls user interaction, and the sponsor manages the architecture and intellectual property underlying the platform. At the same time, these authors note that the following models may exist:

- proprietary model – one company manages and sponsors the platform;

- license model – a group of companies manages, one company sponsors;

- joint model – managed by one, sponsored by a group;

- equity model – one group of companies manages, the other sponsors ^[2].

Thus, if the management of the platform is transferred to a separate company, then it becomes the operator of the platform. In this case, the system of contractual relations is complicated by the existence of contractual relations between the technology owner and the operator (management company); the latter, in turn, is in contractual relations with the users of the platform. The relationship between the platform operator and the owner of the platform technology can legally be put into a contractual form (service agreement and license agreement) or corporate;

f) contracts concluded between the technology owner and investors whose function – whose function – is to ensure the commercial functioning of the platform.  These can be, for example, loan agreements, simple partnerships, and others. The independence of the contractual type of investment contract is debatable in the legal literature, a number of authors justify the existence of such a contractual type ^[32]. The state may also participate in investment agreements, while the civil nature of such agreements is disputed in the scientific literature ^[33]. These relations may also have a corporate legal form rather than a contractual one.

g) contracts concluded by the platform operator with the owners of information aggregators whose function is to ensure the dissemination of information about the platform and the value realized on it (goods, works, services, results of intellectual activity) and thereby the promotion of the platform's services and values that are realized on it. Aggregators of information use data from different sources;

2. The digital nature of the platform leaves its imprint on the procedure for concluding and executing contracts with its clients: these are contracts concluded electronically through communication channels, most often in the form of accession agreements to the rules developed by the platform.

We believe that contracts concluded by users of the digital platform with the platform operator should be classified as accession agreements. The terms of such an agreement are determined by the platform operator; as a rule, they are formulated in the form of standard texts of user agreements. The essence of the platform as a regulator of interaction between users, as well as the massive nature of the services it provides, inevitably entails that the platform operates according to certain rules developed by the platform itself, which are designed for repeated use. On the one hand, these rules become local acts of the platform, and on the other hand, in terms of regulating relations with users, they become standard terms of contracts concluded with users of the platform. Thus, A.V. Kryuchkova notes that user agreements take on the character of a "local law" and represent a combination of the most favorable conditions for digital platforms ^[34].

The rules of Article 428 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), regulating relations regarding the conclusion of an accession agreement, are intended to provide increased protection to the acceding party in case unfair conditions are included in the agreement. When considering a dispute over the application of the norms of Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the acceding party will have to prove that the contract concluded by it is an accession contract. Thus, according to paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 14, 2014 No. 16 "On Freedom of Contract and its limits", the court evaluates the unfair conditions in conjunction with other terms of the contract and, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular, determines the actual ratio of the negotiating capabilities of the parties and finds out whether there was an accession to the proposed conditions are forced, and also takes into account the level of professionalism of the parties, competition in the relevant market, whether the affiliated party has a real opportunity to negotiate or conclude a similar contract with third parties on other terms, etc.

Thus, the qualification of the contract as an accession contract depends on the actual circumstances of the case, and not on the indication of this in regulatory legal acts. Taking into account the peculiarities of the functioning of digital platforms, we propose to proceed from the presumption that the agreements concluded by the platform operator with its users on the provision of services to the platform itself are accession agreements. The introduction of this presumption is intended to protect the interests of the acceding party and relieve it of the burden of proving the fact of the conclusion of the accession agreement.

3. The legal significance is undoubtedly seen in the fact that platforms play the role of organized markets. Thus, they assume the role of the subject of law-making. The platform rules mentioned above play an important role as a regulator of economic relations. In terms of regulating relations with users, these rules become part of contracts concluded by the platform operator with users. On the dual nature of the platform rules (user agreements) as a local act and part of the contract with users, E. L. Poletaeva and E. D. Samsonova ^[35], as well as S. A. Lukashevich ^[36] pay attention.

The rules of the platform can regulate not only civil law relations, but also labor relations, acting as local acts of labor law.

In addition, in order to more effectively manage the process of interaction between market agents, the platform can also develop standard terms of contracts concluded on the platform between platform users.

4. The platform market can be characterized by varying degrees of involvement of the platform itself (its operator) in this market. Depending on this, the legal regime of the platform and the legal status of the platform operator may be different. The digital platform can be an aggregator of information about goods, works, services, and the platform operator is the owner of the aggregator of information as it is called by the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" (preamble, Articles 9 and 12), or an information intermediary, as it is called by Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The inclusion of elements of economic mediation in the content of the platform's activities, when the digital platform itself implements the client's product on his behalf or on its own behalf or acts as a representative of the other side of the platform, for example, in relation to receiving goods or funds in favor of one of the parties of the platform, affects the legal qualification of the legal relations of the platform and clients, the scheme of contractual relations, existing between them, with all the ensuing legal consequences, including the definition of the subject of legal responsibility.

5. The subject composition of relations is also characterized by the fact that the same subject can act in different legal roles at different times, which in the literature is characterized as a process when the platform "turns inside out" ^[2]: the buyer can become the seller and vice versa, which, of course, does not lead to a mixture of these legal statuses, but what you need to pay attention to when forming local platform rules. This may have legal significance when the rules of the platform provide for a special legal status of an entity performing two roles on the platform (for example, granting it certain advantages).

6. Of particular legal significance may be such a characteristic of platform relations as the openness of the platform for economic agents to join it. The degree of openness depends on the platform operator. At the same time, as noted by D. Parker, M. Alstin and S. Chaudhary, the persons managing the platform should make decisions on the degree of openness regarding the participation of three types of entities on the platform:

1) regarding the participation of managers and sponsors. At the same time, the following models may exist, representing various forms of openness:

- proprietary model – one company manages and sponsors the platform;

- license model – a group of companies manages, one company sponsors;

- joint model – managed by one, sponsored by a group;

- equity model – one group of companies manages, the other sponsors.

2) regarding the participation of developers of three types:

- core developers;

- extension developers;

- data aggregators;

3) regarding user participation.

In the future, it is necessary to constantly monitor the balance of the platform between openness and closeness and clarify its settings ^[2].

In the economic literature, platforms are divided into open and closed (Report for public consultations of the Bank of Russia "Ecosystems: Approaches to Regulation", April 2021). This may have the following legal meaning. If the platform operator announces its full openness to all users, then the legal regime of a public contract should be extended to the contracts concluded by it with users.  However, in the event that the platform operator has decided to restrict access to the platform for certain categories of potential participants or sets certain conditions for access to the platform, the legislator should not interfere in such a decision. In this case, the principles of freedom of economic activity and freedom of contract should apply.  The closeness of the platform can contribute to improving the quality of its services (an uncontrolled increase in the number of users can lead to "congestion", any technology has physical limitations) and its attractiveness due to its "club" nature.

With regard to open platforms and the legal regime of the public contract applied in this case, it is worth noting that the question of what determines the qualification of the contract as public is debatable. The wording of Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation makes it possible to recognize as public a contract that is concluded in such a field of activity, which by its nature is associated with the obligation to sell goods, perform work, provide services to everyone who applies. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, apparently, adheres to this approach, when, for example, in paragraph 15 of the Plenum Resolution No. 49 of December 25, 2018 "On some issues of the application of the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the conclusion and interpretation of the contract" defines a public contract by indicating what the nature of the activities of the party to the contract is. However, Judge V. S. Romanovsky, presenting the draft of this resolution in relation to a public contract, pointed out that the provisions of Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not contain a clear criterion for classifying a specific type of contract as public or non-public, which is why in paragraph 15 of the draft resolution, the working group proposes to list in detail the contracts that relate to public and those that which do not belong to them (Ivanov M. Judicial report. The Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the Civil Code on public contracts // Online edition of LEGAL.REPORT. 2018. December 13. URL: https://legal.report/verhovnyj-sud-dal-tolkovanie-polozhenijam-gk-o-publichnyh-dogovorah / (accessed: 07/24/2023).

In judicial practice (see, for example, the Decision of the Federal Arbitration Court of the North-Western District of September 13, 2013 No. F07-6425/13 in case No. A56-45432/2012, the Decision of the Arbitration Court of Primorsky Krai of June 01, 2018 in case No. A51–25629/2017) and the scientific community (see, for example, the review of points of view to this question: ^[37]) one can find an opinion according to which only a direct indication of the law on the public nature of a particular type of contract makes it so.

In order to avoid legal uncertainty regarding the recognition of contracts concluded with the platform operator as public, we consider it necessary to recognize such contracts as public by directly specifying this in the law. However, the legal regime of a public contract should apply, as already noted, only to platforms in respect of which a decision has been made on their full openness. It is necessary to determine at the legislative level that the legal regime of a public contract may be associated with its recognition as such not by law, but by local acts of the economic entities themselves.

7. For their successful functioning, platforms pay special attention to network effects, strengthening their positive consequences and minimizing negative ones. To enhance the positive network effects of the platform, it is advisable to develop a customer policy, reflect it in the platform rules, develop a system of discounts and incentives to attract new customers. Thus, this is reflected in local rules and contracts, that is, it may have legal significance.

In relation to this, the question arises about the legal permissibility of concluding contracts with one group of platform users on different terms, depending, for example, on their loyalty (age of partnership, activity, etc.) or other factors. The rule on the equality of conditions for all consumers is included in the legal regime of public contracts. The need to extend the regime of public contracts to contracts concluded with the operator of an open digital platform was mentioned above. In addition, public contracts include many contracts concluded by users of the platform among themselves, for example, retail purchase and sale contracts, the provision of hotel and medical services.

The question arises whether the establishment of different prices and other terms of the transaction for users of the same side of the platform corresponds to paragraph 2 of Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states that the price of goods, works or services in public contracts should be the same for consumers of the corresponding category, and other terms of the public contract cannot be established based on advantages of individual consumers or providing them with preferences. Exceptions (granting benefits to certain categories of consumers), according to this norm, can only be established by legal acts. Thus, it can be noted that Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes as a general rule the equality of the terms of a public contract for all consumers of the corresponding category and does not allow the subject of economic activity to establish otherwise in local acts or a contract with a consumer.

The interpretation of this provision by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 17 of the above-mentioned Resolution of the Plenum of December 25, 2018 No. 49 "On some issues of the application of the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the conclusion and interpretation of the contract" is ambiguous. It is criticized by scientists. For example, M. Krotov notes that the court "reversed" the general rule from a ban to a permit, and also used such an unacceptable criterion as the personal characteristics of consumers, on which the difference in the terms of the contract may depend (Conclusion of the contract. Public contract (transfer 160) // ANTONIVANOV.RU . URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnPPXPgxoVQ (accessed: 07/24/2023)).

So, the general rule, according to the wording of the Supreme Court, is that the price in a public contract may vary for consumers of different categories, for example, for students, pensioners, large families. At the same time, according to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consumer categories can be established not only by legal acts, but also determined by a person obliged to conclude a public contract, for example, in the rules of the loyalty program, based on objective criteria, including those related to personal characteristics of consumers, if these criteria do not contradict the law. Such a person should make information about consumer categories available to consumers, for example, post it on their official website.

We believe that, in general, we should welcome the position that it is permissible to establish by local acts of the subject of economic activity the possibility of forming different terms of the contract depending on the categories of consumers defined by this subject. However, firstly, it is questionable whether such an interpretation corresponds to the norm of paragraph 2 of Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is focused on the fact that exceptions can be introduced only by regulatory legal acts, and secondly, it is necessary to be careful to leave the definition of consumer categories to the subjects of economic activity. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to include in the legal regime of digital platforms, formed at the legislative level, a norm on categories of consumers for whom other conditions of a public contract can be determined in order to provide operators of digital platforms with a certain freedom in forming different conditions for consumers, taking into account their economic loyalty and, possibly, other justified with economic and social positions of factors.

8. Special pricing affects the type of contracts concluded, as well as the formation of the contractual price set in contracts with users of the platform. It seems that the operators of the digital platform provide their users with services (they can be referred to as digital services, see ^[38]). In the event that the value of users on one side of the platform is particularly significant for its existence and functioning, platform services will be provided to them free of charge. Thus, the services of digital platforms are another example of gratuitous services, the existence of which is an additional argument in favor of including relations for the provision of gratuitous services in the subject of civil law (see an overview of the discussion on this issue: [39. pp. 31-32]). The consumers of the platform's services – individuals - have the illusion that these services are free of charge in the absence of a commission for using the platform's services. It should be borne in mind that in this case, the form of monetization for the platform is advertising (that is, the consumer pays with his attention), or the platform commission is taken into account in the price of the value acquired through the platforms (goods, work, service, the result of intellectual activity or the right to it). Thus, the contract for the gratuitous provision of services is only a legal form of relations, from an economic point of view, these relations are most often of a paid nature. E. D. Vorotnikova, for example, justifies that the counter-provision in such contracts can be performed in some other way than by paying money from the consumer to the operator of the platform, namely by obtaining economic benefits by the operator through contracts related to the user agreement ^[40].

9. The gratuitous nature of the services provided by the platforms, taking into account the fact that gratuitous services are often provided to individuals who use the platform not for business purposes, raises the question of extending the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" to their relations. The definition of the contractor in the said law contains as a mandatory feature that the contractor provides services to consumers under a paid contract (the preamble of the Law). Thus, in most cases, when the platform provides services to the consumer free of charge, from a legal point of view, the user does not receive increased protection by consumer protection legislation, which seems unfair.

The consumer is a subject of increased protection due to the fact that he, in comparison with the entrepreneur, has less market power, in their relations it is of great importance that they are in a position of information asymmetry. It turns out that an individual, entering into a relationship with a digital platform, is also in the position of a weaker party from an economic point of view. It seems that it is necessary to take into account the peculiarity of the platform business, which consists in the possibility of providing services to users of one side free of charge, only because their participation on the platform significantly increases the attractiveness of this platform, that is, the platform operator compensates for the gratuitous nature of the relationship by charging users of the other side of the platform (sellers, service providers, advertisers). Thus, from a legal point of view, these relations are gratuitous, but from an economic point of view, the gratuitous nature of the relationship makes it possible for the platform to receive more material benefits in general from its activities. We believe that it is necessary to take this aspect into account in the legal regime of digital platforms and not to infringe on the position of the consumer of platform services when such services are provided free of charge. It is necessary to extend the provisions of the legislation on consumer protection to such individuals – users of the platform.

10. Special economic pricing rules are important for antimonopoly legislation, which uses categories that take into account the price in the market: unfair competition, monopolistically high price, monopolistically low price. Obviously, in the case of digital platforms, these concepts have a different content. Thus, it is necessary to change the traditional interpretation of monopolistically low prices as prices below costs, as well as the practice of selling goods at a price below cost as evidence of an intention to oust competitors from the market in order to then raise prices. According to the researchers, on the one hand, platform companies can maximize revenue even if they offer services to one side of the market at zero price. They achieve this by generating significant revenue from selling products that are offered to the other side of the market. On the other hand, companies can rationally evaluate their products and sell them to a certain group of consumers at zero price even in the absence of competition.

11. In general, the economic features of digital platforms are of direct importance for competition law and the practice of its application. M. A. Egorova and E. S. Khokhlov rightly note that in relation to multilateral markets, including digital platform markets, traditional market analysis tools, including with respect to determining the market and its boundaries, market share and market power are not always appropriate; the analysis must take into account network effects and the use of big data platforms ^[41]. In general, there are different approaches to antitrust regulation of digital companies. Thus, R. W. Crandall sees the development of antimonopoly legislation in the direction of finding effective means of combating new monopolists and finding a balance between the need to support innovation and fight anti-competitive practices and consumer protection ^[42]. P. S. Diaz believes that in this area, advanced regulation is not required, post-regulation and post-reaction can be more effective [43M. A. Egorova notes that in Russia it is necessary to prepare legislative proposals that will be aimed at preventing the monopolization of commodity markets in the field of digital technologies [44].

On September 1, 2023, Federal Law No. 301-FZ of July 10, 2023 "On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" comes into force. These changes were adopted as part of the "fifth digital antimonopoly package", which was developed in 2019. (URL: https://fas.gov.ru/p/presentations/582 (accessed: 07/23/2023)).

With regard to digital platforms, the law provides for the following:

1) the concept of network effect is given,

2) it is indicated that the presence of network effects is established by the antimonopoly authority when analyzing competition in commodity markets, transactions in which are made through the use of a digital platform, and assessing the ability of the owner of the digital platform to influence the relevant market,

3) there is a ban on monopolistic activity by an economic entity owning a digital platform, provided that the network effect gives it the opportunity to have a decisive influence on the general conditions of circulation of goods in the commodity market in which transactions are carried out through a digital platform, the share of such transactions exceeds in value terms thirty-five percent of the total volume of transactions made on the corresponding in the commodity market, and the revenue of the owner of the digital platform for the last calendar year exceeds two billion rubles;

4) an additional "threshold" criterion has been established for monitoring economic concentration in addition to the traditional criteria based on the amount of revenue and the value of assets of participants in economic concentration: if the transaction price exceeds 7 billion rubles, which is relevant for digital markets, when the impact on the market depends on network effects, and not on assets that owned by a digital platform operator.

Thus, in the antimonopoly regulation of digital platforms, it is necessary to take into account the economic characteristics of digital platforms, which affects the economic behavior of their operators, the definition of market boundaries, market power, and the ability to create barriers to competition. There is a need to adjust the competition law to the new platform realities. Despite the fact that the current antimonopoly legislation of Russia contained sufficient structures to use them to eliminate unfair competition and abuse of a dominant position in the digital platform market, which is primarily due to the non–exhaustive list of anti-competitive behavior provided for by law, the law has been amended to take into account the main feature of platform markets - network effects.

The adjustment of competition law to the regulation of digital markets is seen primarily in changing approaches to the application of its norms, taking into account the economic features of platform markets in their analysis, which requires the development of appropriate methodological acts of the antimonopoly authority.

In general, the legal regulation of competition in the market of digital platforms is an essential part of their legal regime (for more information about this element of the legal regime of digital platforms, see: ^[45]).

12. In order to develop competition in the platform market, as well as to protect consumer rights in legal regulation, the issue of platform compatibility, switching between them, and transferring customer information should be resolved. At the same time, as B. Engels notes, data portability should be guaranteed where it improves competition and stimulates innovation, this is usually recommended in cases where platforms offer additional or alternative products, and the risk of anti-competitive behavior is high ^[5].

13. The legal regime of digital platforms must necessarily include legal means to reduce threats to information asymmetry and information security: legal protection of personal data, protection of customers from collecting excessive information, development of mechanisms to facilitate the proof of facts of manipulation of consumer behavior. It is possible to propose the introduction of a certain analogy of social partnership in labor relations, the conclusion of tripartite agreements between representatives of the state, business (digital platforms) and consumers aimed at reducing the level of unfair behavior of platforms.

14. When building a model of legal regulation of the platform economy, it is necessary to solve the problems that arise when platforms use digital technologies, especially artificial intelligence technologies and big data analysis. To do this, it is necessary to introduce procedures for leveling the bias of the algorithms used in the legal regime of digital platforms and increasing their transparency, explicability and comprehensibility, as well as mandatory human participation in making a number of decisions. Most likely, this can be done at the level of self-regulation, when developing platform rules. At the state level, it is advisable to describe the basis for the use of digital technology platforms. This can be fixed in strategies, policies for the development of artificial intelligence or digital platforms.

It is necessary to consider the introduction of a ban on the adoption by digital platforms of a number of decisions with negative legal consequences, only based on artificial intelligence algorithms.

It can be recommended to create legal mechanisms for the speedy and simplified challenge of decisions made on the basis of artificial intelligence with the introduction of appropriate legal presumptions (illegality and groundlessness of the decision), possibly notification cancellation of the decision for the period of the dispute.

The legal regime of digital platforms should include ensuring rapid response to errors and their correction. The solution to the problem is seen, first of all, at the level of self-regulation, through the development of feedback standards by communities of Internet companies, the development of rules for feedback and response to complaints by a specific platform, the inclusion of a person in these mechanisms, the inclusion of conditions for improvements, upgrades in contracts with developers of the corresponding software.

Given the particular vulnerability of consumers in this area, it is possible to use other legal mechanisms of increased legal protection – the introduction of compensation for property damage instead of compensation for losses, legal presumptions, simplified procedures for challenging decisions and others.

For more information about this aspect of the legal regime of digital platforms, see: ^{[46, 47]}. 

3. Conclusions

So, the analysis of the digital platform as a type of economic market relations allows us to identify the main characteristics of the platform economy that may have legal significance:

1) the platform economy is bilateral or multilateral in the sense that it is based on the interaction, as a rule, of two groups of market agents – those who offer their goods and services, and those who purchase them. The market may be more complicated when other groups of economic agents participate in it;

2) platform markets are organized markets: the organization of the market, its regulation, and control over its functioning are carried out by the platforms themselves as private economic agents;

3) platform markets are centralized markets in the sense that economic agents are concentrated around certain platforms, certain areas of commodity markets are aggregated on them;

4) in platform markets, there are no other intermediaries between sellers and buyers, except for the platform itself, which changes the structure of the market, excluding other intermediaries from market relations;

5) platform economy is a type of sharing economy, when products are created jointly by economic agents of different parties, consumers of goods and services are involved in their creation, often they themselves become their producers, acting in different roles on the platform;

6) the openness of the platform for joining, however, the degree of openness may be different;

7) the most important feature of the platform market is network effects, while they can be both direct and cross, both positive and negative. Network effects mean the influence of the number of users on one side of the platform on its value to other users of the same or other side of the platform;

8) network effects generate the use of special pricing in the platform economy: prices for different participants are set differently, prices for participants of the most "valuable" party may be lower than marginal costs;

9) the Internet plays a special role in the economy of digital platforms, with its help, rapid interaction between the parties is organized;

10) platform transformation is subject to markets with an information component;

11) the digital nature of platforms deepens their features, the use of digital technologies by platforms has a significant impact on platform market relations: the use of algorithms (applied artificial intelligence), big data makes it possible to automatically establish interaction between market participants and its further functioning, automatic control over their interaction, as well as special opportunities for collecting and analyzing information;

12) in the platform market, competition has its own characteristics; in addition, the platform market is characterized by the dominance of global platforms on it, which is due to network effects, that is, the desire of platform participants to get more benefits from participating in the platform with the largest number of participants.

Let's highlight the legal significance of the main characteristics of platform economic relations.

1. The bilateral or multilateral nature of the platforms determines the system of contractual relations on the platform. For a more complete construction of the contract system, it is necessary to take into account not only the understanding of the digital platform as a type of market relations, but also other aspects of understanding the digital platform (as a technology, as an organizational form of doing business, etc.). Relations can be clothed in different contractual types and types, based on the principle of freedom of contracts. The scheme of contractual relations may depend on the type of platform. It is possible to build the following system of contractual relations that develop on a digital platform, depending on which participants of platform relations conclude contracts and what function these contracts perform on the platform:

a) contracts concluded between the platform operator and its users, whose function is to provide users with access to the platform and its services;

b) contracts concluded between users of the platform whose function is to ensure the realization of value through the platform;

c) contracts concluded between the platform operator and its users, whose function is to ensure the realization of value through the platform;

d) contracts concluded by the platform operator with software developers whose function is to ensure the functioning of the platform as a technological platform);

e) contracts concluded between the platform operator and the copyright holder of the main platform technology, the function of which is to ensure the organizational functioning of the platform;

f) contracts concluded between the technology owner and investors whose function – whose function – is to ensure the commercial functioning of the platform.

g) contracts concluded by the platform operator with the owners of information aggregators whose function is to ensure the dissemination of information about the platform and the value realized on it (goods, works, services, results of intellectual activity) and thereby the promotion of the platform's services and values that are realized on it.

2. Due to the digital nature of the platform, contracts on the platform are concluded in the form of an electronic document, signed with an electronic signature. In order to form an enhanced legal protection for the users of the platform, the legal regime of the accession agreement should be assumed.

3. Local rules developed by the platform operator regulate the relations that develop in the platform market. Their content becomes part of the contracts concluded with the users of the platform. They can regulate not only civil law relations, but also labor relations, acting as local acts of labor law (sources of labor law).

4. The economic essence of the relationship affects the legal status of the platform operator and the assignment of legal responsibility to him for the actions of the direct contractor under the contract concluded through the digital platform. Digital platforms can be aggregators of information about goods, works and services in the sense given to this concept by the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", and the platform operator is the owner of the aggregator. The platform operator can act as an information intermediary in the terminology of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in determining its responsibility for intellectual property infringement.

5. The same user of the digital platform can act in different legal roles at different times: the buyer can become the seller and vice versa, which can be taken into account in the rules of the platform.

6. If the platform operator declares it open for any persons to join, the law must recognize such a platform business as public in the sense of Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, the legislator should not deprive the platform operator of the right to make a decision on restricting access to the platform of certain categories of potential users.

7. In order to form and enhance network effects, the local rules of the platform and the terms of contracts concluded with users should regulate the client policy, the system of discounts and incentives to attract new customers. The application of the legal regime of public contracts should be softened by law to include cases where it is allowed to conclude contracts with users of one side of the platform on different terms, thereby giving a certain freedom to digital platforms in the formation of different conditions for consumers, taking into account their economic loyalty, other economically and socially justified factors.

8. Relations between the operator of the platform and its users, the value of which is essential for the platform, can be built on a gratuitous basis and mediated by contracts for the provision of gratuitous services.

9. It is necessary to extend the provisions of the legislation on consumer protection to individuals who are users of the platform, regardless of the nature of the services provided (on a reimbursable or gratuitous basis) due to the economically remunerative nature of the relationship.

10. It is necessary to interpret the concept of monopolistically low prices in antimonopoly legislation in a different way in relation to digital platforms.

11. In the antimonopoly regulation of digital platforms, it is necessary to take into account the economic characteristics of digital platforms, which affects their economic behavior, the definition of market boundaries, market power, and the ability to create barriers to competition. Market dominance may be related to the level of network effects, rather than the size of assets owned by a digital business company. It is necessary to change approaches to the application of competition law.

12. In order to promote competition in the platform market, as well as to protect consumer rights, the law should address the issue of platform compatibility, rules for switching users between them, and transferring customer information from one platform to another.

13. The legal regime of digital platforms must necessarily include legal means to reduce threats to information asymmetry and information security: legal protection of personal data, protection of customers from collecting excessive information, development of mechanisms to facilitate the proof of facts of manipulation by the operator of the platform by consumer behavior. It is possible to propose the introduction of a certain analogy of social partnership in labor relations, the conclusion of tripartite agreements between representatives of the state, business (digital platforms) and consumers aimed at reducing the level of unfair behavior of platforms.

14. It is necessary to introduce procedures for leveling the bias of the algorithms used in the legal regime of digital platforms and increasing their transparency, explicability and comprehensibility, as well as mandatory human participation in making a number of decisions. It is advisable to create legal mechanisms for the speedy and simplified challenge of decisions made on the basis of artificial intelligence with the introduction of appropriate legal presumptions. At the state level, it is advisable to describe the basis for the use of digital technologies by platforms, a detailed legal regime should be formed at the local level by the platforms themselves.