The platform economy serves as a critical vehicle for the deep integration of the real economy and the digital economy. Promoting its healthy development not only concerns market efficiency but is also closely related to social equity and sustainable development. 

Disorder in multiple dimensions

In recent years, issues such as platforms leveraging algorithmic pricing to extract consumer surplus, platform data monopolies generating market imbalances, and insufficient protection of gig workers’ rights have attracted widespread public attention.

First, while platform enterprises rely on big data and algorithms to improve service experiences, they may also engage in extracting consumer surplus through practices such as dynamic pricing and differentiated recommendations. For example, some ride-hailing platforms have reportedly used behavioral data to implement “personalized pricing.” Certain e-commerce platforms likewise rely on “user profiling” to push higher-priced products to high-net-worth consumer groups. Such practices essentially suppress consumers’ bargaining power through technological authority. The opacity of the so-called “algorithmic black box” further erodes users’ trust in platforms.

Second, under highly concentrated market structures, some leading platforms have formed “winner-takes-all” dynamics by leveraging data monopolies, making it difficult for new entrants to survive. Certain platforms have harnessed digital bottleneck resources to compel users to choose one of two platforms, undermining fair market competition. Several food delivery platforms have also raised commission rates for merchants from around 15% to more than 20%, leaving some small and medium-sized restaurants facing the predicament of rising revenue but stagnant profits. If such platforms abuse their dominant market positions, they risk not only weakening market innovation and competition but also reducing the efficiency of platform-based resource allocation.

Third, China’s platform economy has created flexible employment for more than 200 million people. Yet many workers remain constrained by forms of “digital Taylorism,” while platforms often show limited human-centered consideration in their management practices. Some platforms further shift risks onto workers by weakening or avoiding formal labor relationships, producing a situation in which capital control is strengthened even as labor protections are weakened.

Clarifying misconceptions about digital justice

In light of these challenges, several common misconceptions regarding digital justice require explicit clarification.

First, the essence of algorithmic price discrimination lies in the abuse of technological power, which is not necessarily tied to platform scale or market structure. Addressing algorithmic discrimination through antitrust regulation should therefore follow a behavioralist logic, relying on case-by-case analysis rather than simplified structural presumptions.

Second, the platform ecosystem involves multiple stakeholders, including platform enterprises, merchants operating within platforms, and platform workers. All may be potential targets of price discrimination and all may occupy disadvantaged positions. For example, delivery workers may be forced to run red lights because algorithms compress delivery times, small merchants may find their profits squeezed by rising platform commissions and traffic-bidding systems, and consumers may fall victim to forms of big-data price discrimination based on platform profiling.

Third, behavioral economics’ “reference point effect” suggests that the psychological impact of gains and losses is asymmetric: Welfare gains generate a sense of acquisition, while welfare losses produce a stronger sense of deprivation.

Building healthy platform ecosystem

Achieving healthy and mutually beneficial development of the platform ecosystem requires adherence to the principle of digital justice and a clear commitment to technology for the public good, ensuring that technological innovation serves people’s interests, meets contemporary needs, and safeguards social justice.

First, optimizing algorithmic pricing mechanisms while strengthening institutional safeguards should serve as a key pathway for enhancing public well-being through the platform economy. Government departments could take the lead in establishing cross-platform price-comparison systems to break down data silos and help consumers form clearer price expectations. The legal principle of reversing the burden of proof in cases of algorithmic discrimination could also be improved to lower the threshold for protecting consumer rights. At the same time, industry associations could formulate ethical guidelines for algorithmic pricing, encouraging platforms to incorporate parameters such as inclusiveness and sustainability into their pricing models.

Second, governance should move beyond a purely consumer-centered perspective and instead establish a tripartite framework encompassing platform enterprises, merchants, and platform workers. At the legal level, clearer prescriptions should be developed for determining labor relationships based on the characteristics of platform-based employment, accompanied by a tiered protection system. Policymakers could also promote the establishment of protection funds for platform labor groups, providing a safety net for occupational injuries for delivery workers squeezed by algorithmic pressures and offering transition support for workers displaced by technological change. At the same time, introducing mechanisms for “algorithmic collective consultation” could further enable platform workers to effectively participate in shaping and optimizing the algorithmic rules that govern their work.

Third, assessments of welfare distribution should assign different weights to units of welfare gain and welfare loss. Redistribution schemes must adhere to a bottom-line approach that minimizes the sense of deprivation while maximizing people’s sense of gain.

Fu Lianying is a professor and vice dean of the School of Economics and Finance at Huaqiao University. Cai Yu is from the Fujian Provincial Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.