Introduction
An anti-competitive agreement refers to any agreement that causes an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) in the market like price fixing, market allocation, bid rigging, etc. Over the past few decades, India’s digital economy has been growing at an unprecedented rate and Big Tech companies gaining dominance in a variety of areas. The competition commission of India has increased its scrutiny of their business practices, while huge companies extend their operations. It reflects a fundamental shift in how competition law is applied in the digital age.
The CCI’s Evolving Approach to Digital Markets
The CCI, formed under the competition Act of 2002 focused on traditional markets. However, the rising digitization of the Indian economy made it necessary the regulatory body to modify the framework to meet certain problems raised by digital platforms. Digital marketplaces are completely distinct from traditional markets because of certain characteristics like:
- Network effects are strong, one company tends to control the entire market.
- Those platforms who are zero priced, provide free services that are monetized through data.
- Platforms that serve numerous customer groups.
- Rapid creativity cycles can dramatically shift competitive dynamics.
These factors necessitated the development of new analytical instruments and approaches by the CCI with the aim to effectively handle digital competition.
Recent Enforcement Actions Against Big Tech
CCI’s Landmark Penalty Against for Anti- Competitive Practices[1]
On 20th October,2022, the Competition Commission of India pressed released regarding penalty on Google for Rs. 1337.76 crore for abusing its dominant position in the android smartphone ecosystem. The ruling accompanied an exhaustive examination into Google’s licensing contracts, which turned out to impose unreasonable constraints on device makers and prevent fair competition. This ruling is an important step toward achieving a fair playing field in India’s digital industry.
Googles Dominance and Anti- Competitive Agreements
The CCI identified five relevant markets in which Google holds a dominant position—licensable mobile operating systems, app stores for Android, general web search services, non-OS-specific web browsers, and online video hosting platforms. Despite Google’s argument that Apple’s iOS provides competition, the CCI rejected this defense, stating that Apple operates under a fundamentally different business model that does not rely on third-party licensing. Despite Google’s contention that Apple’s has a completely distinct business strategy which does not depend on third party licensing.
In order to maintain market dominance, google introduced agreements which included the mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA), the Anti- Fragmentation Agreement (AFA), and the revenue sharing agreement (RSA). These agreements require manufacturers to pre- install google products such as search, chrome, and YouTube, that provide Google’s continuing from other developers. Such limitations hindered smartphone makers from creating alternative versions of Android (forks) by limiting innovation and user choice.
Findings of CCI and Violations Under Competition Law
The CCI’s investigation concluded that Google had violated Section 4 of the Competition Act,2002 for:
- Imposing unfair conditions on device manufacturers
- Restricted market access for other competitors.
- Strengthening its dominance by leveraging its position in multiple markets
Corrective Measures and Compliance Directives
Other than from imposing a monetary penalty, the competition commission of India (CCI) released a series of instructions to rectify Google’s anti- competitive behavior.
- ordered Google to stop mandatory pre-installation of its apps
- allow manufacturers to choose default search engines
- permit third party app stores on play store without restrictions
- remove barriers to android modifications
CCI Fines Meta ₹213.14 crore for WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy[2]
Meta received a penalty of 213.14 crore by the competition commission of India for violating WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy during its participation in anti- competitive practices. The policy required users to submit their data with meta, which violated the 2002 competition act. CCI assessed Meta’s dominating position in the message and advertising marketplace unacceptable. The commission instructed WhatsApp to:
- Stop exchanging data with meta for advertising for the next five years.
- Give explicit data usage justification,
- allow consumers to opt out of non-service data sharing,
- And ensure future changes follow regulatory rules.
The decision made by the CCI preserves user privacy while ensuring fair market competition in the digital space.
Amazon-Flipkart vs. CCI case[3]
CCI launched an investigation in 2020 against Amazon and Flipkart over allegations of giving preferential treatment to select sellers, deep discounting, and engaging in anti-competitive agreements. The case was based on complaints by the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM), a traders’ body representing small retailers.
The competition commission of India began an inquiry in 2020, against Amazon and Flipkart for reportedly proving preferential treatment to certain vendors, high discount, and entering into anti- competitive agreements. The action arose from allegations which were filed by the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM), a trade association that represents small shops. Amazon and Flipkart then opposed the CCI’s investigation and contended that:
- The CCI lacked jurisdiction since their business strategies did not violate antitrust laws.
- Their marketplace system was independent of the sellers, and they had no influence over price.
- The Enforcement Directorate and CCI investigation overlapped which resulted in needless scrutiny.
Amazon and Flipkart’s argument was denied by the Karnataka High court (2021) and allowed CCI to continue its probe. The supreme court (2022) favored the verdict of high court and ruled that the CCI had the power to investigate their conduct. This decision established CCI’s authority to verse Big Tech in digital Marketplaces, by a precedent for stronger e-commerce monitoring.
Legal Challenges
- The Competition Commission of India (CCI) faces several legal challenges when regulating Big Tech companies:
- The intricate nature of Big Tech companies’ digital networks is what makes it challenging for CCI to effectively estimate market strength.
- The CCI’s power might conflict with other regulatory bodies which create ambiguity and enforcement issues.
- Regulating multinational Big Tech business is challenging for the CCI, particularly when enforcing rulings across borders.
- The CCI faces challenges in keeping up with the rapid expansion of digital markets, which often exceeds existing legal frameworks.
Global Parallel and Regulatory Convergence
The competition commission of India (CCI) experiences identical problems by a prominent global regulatory body which includes the European Commission (EC), the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the UK’s CMA in restricting Big Tech’s Market Influence.
Global Comparisons
The level of complexity in defining Digital Markets has been emphasized in instances such as EC vs. Google (2022)[4] and US DOJ vs. Apple (2024)[5]. CCI possesses jurisdictional complications between competition law and data protection, very similar to those in the EU and the United States. It is also following extraterritorial enforcement, influenced by the EU’s DMA, in order to enforce around the world anti-competitive behaviour that harm Indian markets
Regulatory Convergence
CCI coordinates globally with authoritative figures such as the International Competition Network (ICN) to ensure Legislation harmony. Influenced by the EU’s DMA and US antitrust measures, it plans to advocate for ex- anti-competitive laws for digital marketplaces, as well as coordinating cross-border investigations with international authorities to tackle global anti- competitive conduct.
The Future of Digital Regulation in India
India’s digital laws and regulations is evolving to cope with Big Tech problems. Influenced by the EU’s DMA, India may implement ex-ante restrictions that will reduce monopolistic conduct. The CCI intends to increase its digital market investigations to ensure fair competition. The DPDPA 2023[6] increases data protection by making big tech companies responsible for their data collection and usage. Stricter rules governing e-commerce, social networks, and AI transparency will target cost algorithms, moderation of content and decision- making via algorithms.
India has been working with global regulators (EU, US, and UK) on cross- border enforcement. CCI’s extraterritorial control may target international tech corporations influencing India markets, promoting a more equitable digital economy.
Conclusion
The CCI’s robust approach to Big Tech represents a fundamental shift in India’s competition law enforcement. By addressing these unique challenges like as data leveraging, self- preferencing, and algorithm- based collusion, the CCI is positioning itself as an important regulator in defining India’s digital economy.
As digital markets evolve, the CCI will have the task of striving the appropriate balance- ensuring fair competition without limiting innovations. The results of ongoing investigations and anticipated modifications to the competition Act will determine whether India can build a competitive and innovative digital economy. To manage India’s increasingly complicated ecosystem, enterprises operating in this sector must be educated about shifting regulatory approaches and proactively address possible competition problem.
[1] Competition Commission of India, Government of India, press released
[2] Competition Commission of India, Government of India, CCI imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 213.14 crore on Meta for anti-competitive practices in relation to 2021 Privacy Policy Update
[3] Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd vs Competition Commission of India on 23 July, 2021
[4] Google LLC and Another v. Competition Commission of India Through its Secretary and Others, 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 147.
[5] United States of America v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04055 (D.N.J. 2024)
[6]The Digital Personal Data Protection Act pdf
Author: Bhavna Singh is a BBA-LLB(Hons), 4th Year Student at XIM University, Xavier Law School, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
