As businesses rely more on automation and data analytics, algorithms are increasingly used to manage intellectual property rights. This includes identifying infringing content, issuing takedown notices, or controlling access to licensed material. While these tools improve efficiency, they also raise important legal questions. One growing concern is whether these algorithms are being used in ways that limit competition. An antitrust lawyer would likely point out that when IP enforcement tools restrict market access unfairly, they may cross into anticompetitive behavior.
IP laws give rights holders a legal basis to protect their work. Algorithms help enforce these rights by scanning platforms, flagging potential violations, and automating responses. This is common on social media, streaming services, and e-commerce platforms. For example, automated systems can remove content that matches copyrighted material or block access to digital products without human review. These tools are efficient, but their reach and accuracy can vary. Additionally, the intention behind them can vary as people may use them to try and scam companies.
When Enforcement Affects Market Access
The legal concern arises when algorithms are used not just to enforce rights, but to push out competitors. For instance, a company with a large patent or copyright portfolio might use automated tools to issue broad takedown requests against rival products. If the algorithm is overly aggressive — or worse, programmed to target specific companies — it could suppress competition without a legitimate infringement claim.
This becomes especially relevant in industries where access to online platforms is critical. If a small business is repeatedly flagged by automated systems and has no effective way to appeal, its ability to compete can be seriously harmed. Even if the takedown was unfounded, the disruption can lead to lost revenue or reputational damage. While a court of law can cover monetary compensation for the lost revenue, the reputational damage is often hard to overcome.
Abuse Of Automated IP Tools As Market Control
Some companies may use enforcement algorithms as a competitive strategy. For example, a firm could develop software that monitors pricing, availability, or product descriptions across e-commerce platforms. If that tool is also designed to file automatic complaints that lead to product removal — even without clear evidence of infringement — it may be viewed as using IP enforcement to block competitors.
Courts and regulators are starting to recognize this risk. While IP laws protect original works, they are not a shield for behavior that limits competition unfairly. If enforcement actions are based on false claims or used to create a barrier to market entry, antitrust laws may apply.
Attorneys like those at COFFYLAW can attest that the use of enforcement tools, even those based on advanced algorithms, does not excuse a company from antitrust scrutiny. Just because a system is automated doesn’t mean it’s neutral. How the system is built and used still matters.
Balancing Innovation With Fair Competition
The challenge is to balance the right to protect IP with the responsibility not to misuse those rights. Algorithms can help manage large-scale enforcement, but they should be designed with checks that prevent abuse. Companies that rely on these tools should allow for reasonable dispute processes and maintain oversight to avoid targeting competitors unfairly. The laws in this area are changing rapidly as AI advances, so it is important to stay up to date on those with the help of legal counsel.
In some cases, even unintentional algorithm design choices can lead to anticompetitive outcomes. This includes setting overly broad matching criteria, failing to validate claims before action, or applying rules inconsistently across platforms.
As algorithmic enforcement becomes more common, businesses need to assess not just what their systems do, but how they do it. Using automated tools to manage IP rights is legal, but using them to block competitors without legitimate claims may raise antitrust concerns. If you’re using — or affected by — automated enforcement in your industry, discussing the issue with a lawyer is a smart way to assess risk and maintain compliance with both IP and competition law.