在数字经济的背景下，数据的战略价值日益凸显，被誉为新时代的“石油”。鉴于此，数据共享的重要性随之显著提升。但数据作为企业竞争的核心资源，企业对于数据的独占倾向愈加明显，数据要素市场呈现垄断现象。同时，在数据共享过程中出现的主观能动性不足、合作地位不平等以及数据互操作性缺失等问题，进一步限制了数据资源的有效共享与利用。在此语境下，反垄断法对此类行为的规制显得尤为重要，其中必需设施规则常常作为规制此类行为的手段之一。必需设施规则历史上争议较大，常有过分侵犯私权之嫌，故而基于公共利益的必需设施规则应严格限定范围。数字经济下，平台常利用杠杆效应将其优势传导至其他市场，其中数据具有私人和公共属性的双重特性，以公共利益为基础的必需设施规则与数据具有原生契合性，但也应根据数据特性进行特殊化调适。在探讨数据是否构成必需设施时，须严格考量数据在企业竞争中的核心作用，以及数据的不可替代性、获取的不可复制性、共享的技术可行性等关键因素。在我国，必需设施规则已开始逐步引入反垄断法的相关法律框架中，但与欧美国家相比，我国的适用基础尚显薄弱。因此，在运用必需设施规则解决数据共享问题时，应坚持严格限定和审慎适用的思路和原则。具体而言，应遵循比例原则，确保数据共享的范围和条件与市场竞争的保护需求相匹配，并通过个案适用的方法，针对不同情况进行具体分析。此外，本文还详细阐述了必需数据的两种典型情形，进一步明确了数据共享的适用场景。在数据共享制度的具体构建中，引入FRAND原则（公平、合理、非歧视性）作为数据共享过程的基本准则，确保数据共享过程的公正性和透明性。同时，允许企业基于正当理由对共享义务进行抗辩，但这些理由应当与反垄断法的基本价值相协调。其次，数据共享的过程还需与个人信息保护法规相协调，以确保在促进市场竞争的同时，充分保护个人隐私和数据安全。最后，建立有效的监督和申诉机制，对数据共享的实施情况进行监督，确保共享制度得到有效执行，平衡公共利益与私人权益。
In the context of the digital economy, the strategic value of data is increasingly prominent and is hailed as the "oil" of the new era. The trend of enterprises monopolizing data is constantly increasing, and the problems of insufficient subjective initiative and unequal cooperation status in the process of data sharing further exacerbate the phenomenon of data monopoly. In this context, antitrust laws must regulate such behavior, and the importance of essential facility rules as one of the regulatory means is gradually becoming prominent. Although the essential facilities rule has always been controversial in the history of antitrust law, its theoretical support based on public interest and the dual attributes of data - both private and public - provide a solid theoretical basis for its application in the field of data.When exploring whether data constitutes necessary facilities, it is necessary to strictly consider the core role of data in enterprise competition, as well as key factors such as the irreplaceability, nonreplicability of data acquisition, and feasibility of shared technology. In China, the essential facility rules have gradually been introduced into the relevant legal framework of anti-monopoly law, but compared with European and American countries, the application foundation in China is still relatively weak. Therefore, when applying the necessary facility rules to solve data sharing problems, the principles of strict limitations and prudent application should be adhered to. Specifically, the principle of proportionality should be followed to ensure that the scope and conditions of data sharing match the protection needs of market competition, and specific analysis should be conducted for different situations through the method of case application. This article also elaborates on two typical scenarios of necessary data, further clarifying the applicable scenarios for data sharing.In the specific implementation of the data-sharing system, the FRAND principle (fairness, reasonableness, and nondiscrimination) is introduced as the basic principle of data sharing to ensure the fairness and transparency of the data-sharing process. At the same time, companies are allowed to defend their sharing obligations based on legitimate reasons, but these reasons should be coordinated with the fundamental values of anti-monopoly law. In addition, the process of data sharing needs to be coordinated with personal information protection regulations to ensure full protection of personal privacy and data security while promoting market competition. Finally, establish an effective supervision and appeal mechanism to supervise the implementation of data sharing, ensure the effective implementation of the sharing system, balance public interests and private rights, promote the reasonable circulation and utilization of data, and promote the healthy development of the digital economy.
