The Main Points of the Article Initially, each new wave of information technology increased productivity and access to knowledge, each new platform was easier and more convenient to use; technology worked for globalisation anda economic growth. Over the years, companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others have introduced many business and technological innovations affecting the world. However, today such companies are accused of being large, undermining competition, causing addiction and destructive consequences for democracy, in other words – BAADD (big, anti-competitive, addictive and destructive to democracy) (Schrager, 2018). These enormous tech platforms really make wonder about the future prospects of fair competition. In his article “Sleep-Walking into a Monopoly: Competition Fears Spark Home-Buyer Warning”, published last year in The Sydney Morning Herald, Josh Dye raises this important question for regional level and a specific segment – the service of registering the transfer of property ownership in Australia. The author in a brief but comprehensible manner describes the problem which arose after the regulator’s decision on obligatory electronic conveyancing. Taking into account that “online property exchange network is an effective monopoly,” controlled by one company – PEXA – there is a risk of the occurrence of monopoly giant (Dye, 2019, para. 3). As the author rightly claims, due to the obligatory nature of the service of e-conveyancing for customers, PEXA company has no real competitors, and concern arises about its unfair market advantage. Although, for now, the company declares the absence of plans to raise prices, in fact, there are no guarantees that in the future it will not behave like all other monopolists. The author makes a conclusion that digital transition implies some risks, and the case of PEXA represents this kind of risk – namely, occurrence of monopoly under the aegis of state. Significance of the Issues/Questions. Author’s Biases This issue is of crucial importance since any new competitors will face significant barriers, as in any monopoly market. The author, on unbiased basis, analyses consequences of PEXA monopoly position for customers and interoperability of similar platforms. No biases are observed in author’s approach and operating facts. He stresses that PEXA company already has network advantage, as “each party to a transaction must use the same network” (Dye, 2019, para. 13). This issue directly refers to the above-mentioned problem of information monopoly in modern economy. The titans of the information industry are not just competing in the marketplace – they are increasingly the marketplace themselves, providing the infrastructure (or “platforms”) for much of the digital economy. Despite the enormous influence these companies have, the off-scale estimates of their value on the stock exchange show that investors expect it to double or even triple in the next decade (Moazed and Johnson, 2016). It should also be noted that network goods increase their value as the number of buyers grows, while the cost of the goods decreases as its value to consumers grows, since marginal costs tend to reach zero over long intervals. At first glance, information monopolies are incapable of d